W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

From: Stone, Matt <matt.stone@pearson.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:15:16 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+w1=RRbiJZN_4xdOYsgbQNJbWweXOcn32xZuq0AC4j26Lx53g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Cc: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
"acceptor" pre-supposes a positive outcome, an inspector may accept or deny
the claim - even if it's verified as authentic. -- I'm not crazy about
"inspector" for the reasons you suggested above.

Maybe we should be focused on the "ask" - this role is that of the
"requester" , ie. some interested party has requested proof of
{status/attribute}. Consult the thesaurus for "one who asks" :)

I don't remember what language problem we're trying to solve was and why we
are moving away from the concept of the "consumer" role.  Is there concern
that the consumer might be confused with the holder of the credential?

dave, can you remind me why we opened this thread?

-stone


=====
Matt Stone
501-291-1599


On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

>
> Oops. Didn't finish a thought in previous post:
> "  a) inspector has much baggage in current UI software. It seems to me
> that everybody decided to put an 'Inspector' into their UI a few years ago.
> I think that's a negative. Confusion of multiple 'inspector' roles already
> residing in the brains of [most computer users],"
>
> or something. Got confused even thinking about 'inspector'. ;-)
>
> Steven
>
>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:16:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:16:18 UTC