On 06/02/2010 09:09 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
One would hope that the author of a TOS or any other document will use
terms appropriate for the audience.
This is the specs list, and we (identity experts) all should know what
an RP is. I see zero value in renaming it for the spec.
Exactly the sentiment I feel. RP has been around for so much time, and I
really doubt that anyone reading specs (and if my grandma would actually
*want* to read the specs - I guess terminology would be ok with her) -
would benefit from such a rename. While some extra confusion would
follow. And am I the only one who doesn't see how 'partner website' is
better than 'relying party' (which is not implying that OpenID is all
about the web-sites for eg)?
If specs are not simple enough, I really doubt that it's because of some
terms, and not out of some (unnecessary?) complications of underlying
technology. So, I am really for some substantial changes, not simple
re-branding/naming, with copy-pasting (not so good, imo) terms from
other services.
Just my 0.00002 cents.
Thanks,
--
Victor Farazdagi
Blog | http://www.phpmag.ru
FourSee | http://www.4cinc.com
UMapper | http://www.umapper.com
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
