On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 actually think it does. Perhaps not in the initial version, but in the future for sure. So, it is better to have it in the design from the beginning. > > > 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 '_' :-) > If you use '_' as the namespace delimiter, then '_' should be disallowed in the parameter name, which is not the case right now. > > > 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. > yes. The above also requires changes on the OpenID side, but I am seeing an opportunity to make the transition smoother. > > so I would request Wrap community to come closer. > > > WRAP followed OAuth, which has much broader adoption from what I know than > OpenID > > Arguably yes, but at the same time, 'wrap_' is not 'oauth_' ;-) > > IMHO, we should try to harmonize/unite instead of fragmenting. > > > Agreed, but perhaps the changes could happen in OpenID or a combination? > Definitely in combination. It is good that OpenID Foundation finally can start creating WGs again. > > -- Dick > > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs > > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/ http://twitter.com/_nat_en
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
