<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 06/02/2010 09:09 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">One would hope
that the author of a TOS or any other document will use terms
appropriate for the audience.
<br>
<br>
This is the specs list, and we (identity experts) all should know what
an RP is. I see zero value in renaming it for the spec.
<br>
</blockquote>
Exactly the sentiment I feel. RP has been around for so much time, and
I really doubt that anyone reading specs (and if my grandma would
actually <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>want<span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> to read the specs - I guess
terminology would be ok with her) - would benefit from such a rename.
While some extra confusion would follow. And am I the only one who
doesn't see how 'partner website' is better than 'relying party' (which
is not implying that OpenID is all about the web-sites for eg)?
<br>
<br>
If specs are not simple enough, I really doubt that it's because of
some terms, and not out of some (unnecessary?) complications of
underlying technology. So, I am really for some substantial changes,
not simple re-branding/naming, with copy-pasting (not so good, imo)
terms from other services.
<br>
<br>
Just my 0.00002 cents.
<br>
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
<br>
<span class="moz-txt-tag">-- <br>
</span>Victor Farazdagi
<br>
<br>
Blog | <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.phpmag.ru">http://www.phpmag.ru</a>
<br>
FourSee | <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.4cinc.com">http://www.4cinc.com</a>
<br>
UMapper | <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.umapper.com">http://www.umapper.com</a>
</body>
</html>