Hi Jonathan, I vote for MUST.
The opinion of unenforcability isn't a justification for SHOULD, and I disagree with that opinion anyhow: we already know that browser-chrome plugins will be supporting OpenID - as soon as an RP picks some other field name, he'll get a flood of complains from users who can't log in to his site. Kind Regards, Chris Drake Thursday, October 19, 2006, 5:27:02 PM, you wrote: JD> # Why SHOULD rather then MUST? [1] JD> # JD> # What valid reason is there for an RP to not have that field name? JD> The simple reason is that one can't enforce a MUST in this case. (And JD> even if one ammends the spec to make the field name a prerequisite for JD> OpenID, I question whether that is a good design choice.) JD> I agree that it would be extremely useful to have a consistent form JD> field name for just the reasons you cited, and the current spec JD> reflects that. If the spec is the place one would put preferences, JD> then they should be RECOMMENDEDs or SHOULDs: not MUSTs. _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
