The recent OAuth 2 specs seem to omit the scenario of a client that cannot host or invoke a browser but could display a URL to the user and ask the user to enter a PIN. Was this an intentional omission? If I am correct, this forces those clients to continue to use OAuth 1.0, which is not only less desirable but it will limit which services they can access.
Thoughts? -- Andrew Arnott "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OAuth" group. To post to this group, send email to oauth@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to oauth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en.
