I'd be interested in supporting the official standards, but not the unofficial ones.
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Benn Oshrin <benjamin.osh...@rutgers.edu>wrote: > --On May 20, 2009 9:15:13 AM -0400 Scott Battaglia > <scott.battag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ] > *Request for Comment* - Define Acceptable Service Urls > ] > ] I admit it's hard to imagine how some protocols might integrate with > ] CAS, but why would we want to limit ourselves? Perhaps you could > ] elaborate on the motivation for this change, and mention what benefits > ] it would provide. I don't see any benefits at first glance. > ] > ] There's really two reasons: > ] 1. the benefit of a common language when discussing services > ] 2. Providing a minimal level of lockdown for those who don't use the > ] Services Management tool > > IANA/Wikipedia to the rescue! > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme> > > Perhaps we should support standards, and sortof standards. > > BTW, I don't really get reason #1. > > -Benn- > > > > -- > You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: > scott.battag...@gmail.com > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see > http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev > -- You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: arch...@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
