I agree formalizing a POC is a bit of a stretch. I was looking at it the other way around. There is a general consensus on XRD, especially the work done here. http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/xrd/ http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/xrd/ Add a simple signature and a host-meta as XRD and we really have a simple XRD spec for which there already is a consensus. A POC will solidify this. THats all that is required really. The problem with XRI TC is that we have the "Camel is a Horse designed by a committee" syndrome.
SitG Admin wrote: > >>Why dont you implement proof of concept for XRD instead? We can then >>formalize it. Why should we wait for XRI TC? After 11 years XRI TC cant even >>sign an XML document reliably. > > A proof-of-concept is useful for showing that something is > *possible*, but if you try to formalize from there it's more of a > "hotshot went off and did their own thing, then expects everyone else > to follow the leader". Google is working *with* the XRI TC, and my > understanding is that they want their work to be useful when we all > start looking for a protocol that a majority of the community can > agree to (with little enough effort that it doesn't become more > efficient to ditch the POC entirely and start over from scratch). > > -Shade > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > ----- Santosh Rajan http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/experimental-namespace-for-openid.net-tp24419697p24430201.html Sent from the OpenID - Specs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
