On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Denny <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 10:39 -0500, Josh Rosenberg wrote: >> 2c. Let OpenID users set a display name that doesn't have to be unique at >> all. This is perhaps strange in the LJ-code paradigm where display names >> are also URLs and therefore have to be unique, but on other blogs where >> users can sign comments with whatever username linked to whatever >> (non-OpenID) URL they want, it's less strange. > > Relatedly, I suggested on IRC this week that maybe we should consider > allowing people to sign a (non-authenticated) name to the category of > comment currently called 'anonymous', so that the DW 'comment posted by' > functionality worked more like blogger et al. > > I don't think we'd want to let them be links (unless they were > openID-authenticated links?), but allowing people to sign a name without > creating an account would make DW a more tempting platform for the > people who want to keep the barrier-to-entry low for commenting on their > posts - the recent LJ hook-up with The Independent made me think about > this again, how are they handling it? Does anybody who wants to comment > have to create an LJ account?
Supposing (and this is probably a discussion that will devolve into whacking at minutiae and is probably better suited for a talk page of the wiki) there was the ability to sign using an arbitrary not-necessarily-unique name, a link that could either be OpenID authenticated (and marked as such), or *not* authenticated, and marked as explicitly not authenticated? Though LJ has disabled the ability to anonymously create links for a reason. And yes: readers of The Independent who want to comment are led through signing up for an LJ account, and given a spiffy default userpic as part of the process. --Azz _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
