On 2010-02-25, at 4:11 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> Hi
>
> This may have come up earlier but ...
>
> I think Wrap should have a namespace / versioning syntax.
> Invariably, it will evolve, and will require version number etc. so, it seems
> better to me to have one from the beginning.
>
> e.g.,
>
> wrap_ns=http://whatever/wrap/1.0
> wrap_client_id ...
Versioning was discussed. I don't recall the details, but it was decided it did
not add value.
>
> I would go further. Why is underscore '_' is used for the delimiter?
> If we make it dot '.', it will improve the future compatibility with OpenID.
Or OpenID could change to using '_' :-)
> So, we could do something like:
>
> openid.ns=http://whatever/wrap/1.0
> openid.client_id ...
>
> The same applies for OpenID. For an unknown reason, though OpenID has
> namespace so that we write:
>
> openid.ns= http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0
>
> the prefix "openid" is fixed. We should be able to change it like:
>
> wrap.ns=http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0
>
> Now, the third point.
>
> Could we not try to harmonize the variable names between the two specs?
>
> OpenID is in use widely, so it is kind of hard to change it,
Interesting assumption. At IIW we discussed OpenID v Next that was NOT backward
compatible. It would seem that there is an oppportunity to make changes to
OpenID as well as OAuth WRAP.
> so I would request Wrap community to come closer.
WRAP followed OAuth, which has much broader adoption from what I know than
OpenID
>
> IMHO, we should try to harmonize/unite instead of fragmenting.
Agreed, but perhaps the changes could happen in OpenID or a combination?
-- Dick
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
