3 ms·

I love how the OIDC standard is littered with “authentication identity token code id cookie identifier” and many subtle variations of homonyms in slightly diffe

I love how the OIDC standard is littered with “authentication identity token code id cookie identifier” and many subtle variations of homonyms in slightly different combinations and orders. I’m sure someone thought it all made perfect sense. Probably someone who never confuses “empathy” and “sympathy” while also carefully distinguishing between “should” and “ought”.

theasisa 22d ago
> Probably someone who never confuses “empathy” and “sympathy” while also carefully distinguishing between “should” and “ought”. What do you mean by this?
- throwaway1058 22d ago
  I feel "ought" is stronger and is something that is expected of you, but English is not my native language. "You should drink more water" "You ought to help your sick mother"
  - da_chicken 22d ago
    I'm a native speaker and I agree. "Ought" can connote an obligation or responsibility of some sort. "Should" is used more often when the outcome is out of any control. It might only be the speaker's belief. But there is significant overlap.
    - zobzu 22d ago
      im not a native speaker and these always made perfect sense to me :(
  - rzzzt 22d ago
    That's when you turn to the RFC2119 all-caps requirement levels!
    - actionfromafar 22d ago
      You really OUGHT to.
    - intrasight 22d ago
      SHALL vs SHOULD
      - rzzzt 22d ago
        shan't vs. oughtn't! Both are equally horrendous.
        drfloyd51 22d ago
        Shan’t is a lot of fun. It feels like such a misuse of contractions. But it works. And it’s fun to say. Also fun: yesn’t. Yes, but really no.
        rzzzt 22d ago
        "Jein" is valid in German, that I know: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jein https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jein
    - deathanatos 22d ago
      > SHOULD — This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. You'll also need RFC 6919[1] for "OUGHT TO": > The phrase "OUGHT TO" conveys an optimistic assertion of an implementation behavior that is clearly morally right, and thus does not require substantiation. And the up-threads gut feel that "ought to" is slightly stronger comes across there, I think: ought to conveys that moral stance, where as "should" is more "there's a decision here, possibly". [1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919.html; n.b., this is an April 1st RFC. I like it, though, and it isn't uncommon to see a stray "ought to" lacking a citation in a non-April-1st RFC.
- perching_aix 22d ago
  Not sure what's giving you a pause there?
  - happytoexplain 22d ago
    It's going over my head, too. I don't understand what the implication of the sentence is in context.
    - hilariously 22d ago
      Someone who is incredibly pedantic and also specific about their word use, who doesn't have a problem with four different descriptions because they all elide to the same thing. ie someone who should have more sympathy AND empathy even if they can disambiguate the terms (for their audience.)
      - ButlerianJihad 22d ago
        > Someone who is incredibly pedantic > they all elide to the same thing I see what you did there: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/elide#Usage_notes https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/elide#Usage_notes Current article title: Authorization terminology is a mess: Let's fix it That being said, GP mentions OIDC Connect, which is indeed a standard using jargon, just like the IETF uses jargon, and when a standard uses or invents jargon, it makes an effort to define that terminology, and also delineate when it's being used. https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#Terminology https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#Termin... If someone believes that standards and specifications are written by pedantic people who are precious about the definitions of words, they may also be likely to fire their attorney during a court case, because that attorney just refuses to use plain English in the courtroom.

theasisa 22d ago

> Probably someone who never confuses “empathy” and “sympathy” while also carefully distinguishing between “should” and “ought”. What do you mean by this?

throwaway1058 22d ago
I feel "ought" is stronger and is something that is expected of you, but English is not my native language. "You should drink more water" "You ought to help your sick mother"
- da_chicken 22d ago
  I'm a native speaker and I agree. "Ought" can connote an obligation or responsibility of some sort. "Should" is used more often when the outcome is out of any control. It might only be the speaker's belief. But there is significant overlap.
  - zobzu 22d ago
    im not a native speaker and these always made perfect sense to me :(
- rzzzt 22d ago
  That's when you turn to the RFC2119 all-caps requirement levels!
  - actionfromafar 22d ago
    You really OUGHT to.
  - intrasight 22d ago
    SHALL vs SHOULD
    - rzzzt 22d ago
      shan't vs. oughtn't! Both are equally horrendous.
      - drfloyd51 22d ago
        Shan’t is a lot of fun. It feels like such a misuse of contractions. But it works. And it’s fun to say. Also fun: yesn’t. Yes, but really no.
        rzzzt 22d ago
        "Jein" is valid in German, that I know: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jein https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jein
  - deathanatos 22d ago
    > SHOULD — This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. You'll also need RFC 6919[1] for "OUGHT TO": > The phrase "OUGHT TO" conveys an optimistic assertion of an implementation behavior that is clearly morally right, and thus does not require substantiation. And the up-threads gut feel that "ought to" is slightly stronger comes across there, I think: ought to conveys that moral stance, where as "should" is more "there's a decision here, possibly". [1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919.html; n.b., this is an April 1st RFC. I like it, though, and it isn't uncommon to see a stray "ought to" lacking a citation in a non-April-1st RFC.
perching_aix 22d ago
Not sure what's giving you a pause there?
- happytoexplain 22d ago
  It's going over my head, too. I don't understand what the implication of the sentence is in context.
  - hilariously 22d ago
    Someone who is incredibly pedantic and also specific about their word use, who doesn't have a problem with four different descriptions because they all elide to the same thing. ie someone who should have more sympathy AND empathy even if they can disambiguate the terms (for their audience.)
    - ButlerianJihad 22d ago
      > Someone who is incredibly pedantic > they all elide to the same thing I see what you did there: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/elide#Usage_notes https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/elide#Usage_notes Current article title: Authorization terminology is a mess: Let's fix it That being said, GP mentions OIDC Connect, which is indeed a standard using jargon, just like the IETF uses jargon, and when a standard uses or invents jargon, it makes an effort to define that terminology, and also delineate when it's being used. https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#Terminology https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#Termin... If someone believes that standards and specifications are written by pedantic people who are precious about the definitions of words, they may also be likely to fire their attorney during a court case, because that attorney just refuses to use plain English in the courtroom.