On 8-Jun-07, at 10:02 AM, Recordon, David wrote:

> I'm confused as to why a RP having to not create a new DB field is a
> requirement when looking to solve this problem.  RP's implementations
> already need to change to upgrade from 1.1 to 2.0 and this has never
> been a requirement in the past.  It certainly is nice that storage
> changes wouldn't be needed, but I don't see it as something that  
> should
> be a requirement.

My feeling was that, all other things being equal, some bits of code  
(stripping the fragment for display purposes) which ideally would go  
into the library, were preferred to requiring a schema change (to  
store the separate token) for the RPs. Not a requirement, but a  
strong preference.


specs mailing list

Reply via email to