Dick, You know that XRI is used by multiple OP. It is not something a RP site demands.
In discovery going forward we need to look at how and if XRI identifiers are supported. Because LRDD and XRI are so close you can normalize a XRI by adding @xri.net to the end and doing webfinger/LRDD resolution to get a XRD. People may be opposed to XRI on philosophical grounds, and want it removed. Breaking peoples openID without a good reason should be avoided. I prefer to look at it as coming up with a suitable discovery flow and then determining what identifier formats are appropriate. If at the end of the day XRI can't be supported we will discover that. I would prefer not to make that a precondition. There are a number of equally under-utilized features of AX we could look at:) John B. On 2010-05-31, at 9:48 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: > > On 2010-05-31, at 6:33 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote: > >> I do not understand why we need to remove XRI. >> XRI being complex etc. is an illusion or badly written code. >> If XRI is complex, acct: URI is complex, too. >> They virtually are the same thing from the processing point of view. >> Keeping the identifier compatibility is really important for the RPs and >> Users. > > I don't think there is much usage of URI, and many sites are not supporting > it. Removing under utilized features that are not adding value simplifies the > specs and implementations. > > Nat: do you know of sites that are heavily using XRIs? > > -- Dick > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
