On 2010-05-31, at 7:34 PM, Chris Messina wrote: > At the very least, the 2.x series of changes should investigate the net-net > adoption of all of the features of OpenID and prioritize and de-prioritize > accordingly. > > Supporting XRIs have been reported to add complexity to the discovery code, > and further, seem to have little adoption in the mainstream and few > implementations in the wild. I'd be eager to hear specific stats that > contradict that sentiment, but I don't want to hold on to features purely out > of nostalgia. > > This points to yet another reason why I worry about the v.Next naming: if we > can't even cut, cut, cut from the 2.0 spec to create a leaner, simpler > protocol that's easier to implement and support, I have a hard time imagining > how we're going to arrive at a simpler, stream-lined technology when v.Next > sounds like it's chartered to include everything and the kitchen sink.
time will tell :) > > Perhaps along with the MRD/PRD that Brian Kissel wants, we should also > produce a DRD — a developer requirements document — that provides insight > into which features of OpenID have actually been implemented by the most > successful OPs (based on market adoption and usage). That is, in order to be > taken into consideration for this requirements document, you have to have > already deployed a public OpenID Provider and have people using it. Good idea -- but I think you mean implementor not developer here. _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
