On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:55 AM, daniel jacobson <[email protected]>wrote:
> I think the biggest benefit to RPs is to create a library that is robust > and portable that would allow for them to designate which OPs they care > about. > I don't want this thread to be taken off course, but for the RP to specify which OPs it supports greatly diminishes the user-centric element of OpenID. The point of OpenID is that I, as a user, can decide who I trust to store my data and provide my identity — rather than having to choose from a specific subset of providers that the RP decides on. This, I suppose, is en vogue today because of Facebook and Twitter Connect, but if the model is to move towards ever greater consolidation of OPs at the whim and discretion of RPs, then I believe we have greatly undermined a fundamental aspect of OpenID. . . . To your question about how this can be done — and "getting the Facebook folks involved" — you should read Luke Shepard's post on how Facebook's accomplishes sign-on with Facebook Connect: http://www.sociallipstick.com/?p=86 http://www.sociallipstick.com/?p=167 http://www.sociallipstick.com/?p=189 Chris -- Chris Messina Open Web Advocate Personal: http://factoryjoe.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com Diso Project: http://diso-project.org OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
