I'm happy to hear that Facebook engineers are enjoying their job. In choosing between long and ambiguous, I think we need to choose long. We could shorten the prefix to oa_. Would that help? :)
On 2010-04-18, at 6:42 PM, David Recordon wrote: > While Facebook platform engineers were quite dubios of no oauth_ > prefix after hacking on a draft implementation their opinion has > changed. They're now really enjoying shorter and cleaner paramater > names and found them to be easier to document and no more difficult to > implement. > > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> (restarting discussion from >> http://groups.google.com/group/oauth-ietf-wg/browse_thread/thread/8aeb31817ead4c2a/f19773643e0a8ba3?pli=1 >> with matching subject) >> Given the practice that the authorization endpoint and the redirect_uri can >> contain URI query parameters, then differentiating between application >> specific query parameters and OAuth protocol parameters by prefixing the >> OAuth parameters with oauth_ would seem a useful way to minimize conflicts. >> Since calls to the token endpoint use POST, there can not be any confusion >> between the parameters in the body of the message and URI query parameters >> Note this has nothing to do with differentiating between protocol extension >> parameters and core OAuth parameters. >> -- Dick >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
