On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 4:49 PM Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> ( OAuth is in the cc cuz Rifaat :) > > Guilty as charged :) Regards, Rifaat The objective is to reduce confusion in standards development by gathering > the definitions for terms used in existing specifications, and to create > awareness of the existing definitions for new work so that existing > definitions are used, or new definitions are intentionally created. > > So yes, documents with new terms, and new definitions for existing terms > would be referenced in the glossary. > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> {does oauth need to remain in the CC?} >> >> Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[email protected]> wrote: >> > The *draft* proposal is talking about a *live* document, with some >> > ideas borrowed from the IANA registry process. >> >> Hmm... registration process. >> It sounds like you are maybe thinking _Specification Required_? >> >> So would documents that introduce new terms then be referenced from the >> Glossary? >> I kind of like that, but I also think it might be too restrictive if >> that's >> the only way to add to it. But, perhaps different entries have different >> levels of authority, and a term that comes from a Specification gets a >> higher >> status. >> >> In general, I think about the many (often vastly different) definitions >> that >> one can see in, for instance, the urban dictionary (.com). >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting >> ) >> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
