Are you really proposing that we should redefine "First Name" again?
Probably badly, as it has been done >>1 times before? (because
previous experience in, say, representing the name structure in non-
western societies, typically doesn't get reused when things get
redefined?)
My point, of course, is not about First Name.
What about simply pointing to established definitions where they
exist and have some market traction, and only inventing new stuff
where it doesn't exist?
On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:39, Brian Hernacki wrote:
The short answer is yes.
The longer answer is that while in a perfect world we’d have some
great common schema we could just use, I’m not aware of any today.
I worry that attempting to navigate the existing schema efforts
would introduce significant delay. Also, approaching compatibility
with a well thought out “open id schema” would likely make any such
discussion easier. Clearly, any schema effort should consider
existing models of use, compatibility with similar common
technologies (e.g. Cardspace) and support for future change.
--brian
On 4/9/07 10:01 AM, "Recordon, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey Brian.
Just to clarify, I don't think there is disagreement that this
should be discussed here. Rather the question is if discussion
should be around creating a new schema on openid.net or rather
looking at using an exisiting one such as ldap.com that Mark
posted about? Ie, discussion location aside, do you believe the
OpenID project should be creating a new schema of its own?
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
