On 3-Jun-07, at 1:46 AM, Recordon, David wrote:
> I thought at IIW we agreed that if we could come to quick consensus
> on a
> way to resolve the problem it would be a part of 2.0, otherwise it
> would
> not...
Agreed, nobody wants to delay 2.0 indefinitely if we can't agree on
how to solve this issue. But the issue was deemed important enough to
be one of the only two on the 2.0 agenda.
> As concerns with the fragment proposal have been raised, which had the
> most agreement at IIW, it seems we no longer have consensus.
I haven't seen many actually; checking this thread for what can count
as concerns reveals only:
a) Josh's initial email
b) Johannes' +1 to not adopting a solution that doesn't actually work
c) David acknowledging the concerns
This doesn't seem to me to carry enough weight to veto the fragment
proposal, especially when a) has been / can still be addressed, and
the fragment proposal made sense to a dozen people at that meeting.
> As seen in
> this thread, there are a wide variety of opinions as to how to resolve
> this concern. I thus think merely picking one for the sake of putting
> something into 2.0 would be misguided.
True, there have been a few (I definitely wouldn't call it a wide
variety) possible solutions mentioned, but none very well defined,
and none had the support of 10+ people like the fragment did.
I have argued that it will have to be core (whether 2.0 or 3.0). I
guess we should ask ourselves then if we really want this addressed
in 2.0, and if yes then try to make it work.
So I ask again - does anyone see any issues with the fragments being
used like this:
http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2007-May/001767.html
If not, I have a hard time understanding where exactly the consensus
was lost.
Johnny
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
