I would not characterize the problem reporting wiki page as a specification... The fact that people are still changing it (mostly by adding new parameters) is only one issue I have with it.
This will be directly addressed by the IETF work and I expect it to change given the feedback I have seen, calling for greatly simplifying this proposal and reducing the number of "problems" and parameters. But since the IETF work will be a new version, it will not directly break existing code. EHL On 3/17/09 8:41 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: I'm not sure it would make more sense, but I think we need a better reason to change it. There are existing implementations that would be incompatible with a different separator. On Mar 16, 11:10 am, Allen Tom <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a quick question about the Problem Reporting Extension regarding > the parameter_absent problem. The spec says that missing parameters > should be listed in the oauth_parameter_absent parameter, using & to > separate multiple parameters. > > Would it make more sense to use commas to separate multiple values? > Using commas to separate multiple values would make the > oauth_parameter_absent parameter consistent with mutivalued URL query > parameters. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OAuth" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
