Johnny Bufu wrote: > > These two seem to have been the rationale of the recent discussions > about splitting the OpenID spec into core/discovery/etc., which > seemed to make sense to a number of people (I'm just not sure if it's > worth / good tactical move at this stage....). >
I tend to think it's a good idea to modularize specifications in the same way as you'd probably modularize the implementation. This is why[1] I was pushing for separate Auth / service discovery stuff: the service discovery stuff is obviously useful for things other than auth, and there are *already* separate libraries for it (Service::Yadis and friends), so it makes sense for it to be given as a separate specification. On the other hand, I also think it's a good idea not to modularize too early: until there's some implementation experience, it's hard to say with certainty what parts make sense as distinct modules. I'm not that familiar with the AX stuff yet, but my gut feeling is that it'd be a good idea for someone to make an experimental implementation to get some implementation experience and then it'll probably be a lot more clear where the articulation points are that make spec modularization worthwhile. There's little point in debating it at this early stage, in my opinion. --------------------- [1] One of the reasons, anyway. The other reason was to reach a situation where the OpenID Authentication specification can largely reference only other specifications under the OpenID umberella, which means bringing the "Yadis" tech into OpenID land (which it basically already is, despite the distinct brand) and defining a subset of the XRDS schema to avoid referencing the entirety of XRI Resolution 2.0, which contains lots of stuff that is not necessary for OpenID and related tech. _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
