There isn't even a working group yet, so no official discussion has
begun. In theory, the working group and spec scope is still
negotiable. But the real holdup seems to be an IPR issue that I no
longer grasp. If there is some discussion elsewhere, I imagine it's
happening in person.
To your original point, I'm really struggling to understand how to get
namespaces into JSON, and everything I've found is either a terrible
reincarnation of the HTML/RDFa/QNAME headache, or a one-to-one mapping
with RDF or XML. Makes me want to research the TLS+RDF and SAML
assertion tech, and I'm in no way comforted by that.
You don't happen to have a way to shove structured data into AX 1.0
style types, do you?
On Dec 15, 2009, at 1:40 AM, Chris Obdam wrote:
Discussions is still going on on the mailinglist, or somewhere else
too?
Op 14 dec 2009, om 22:12 heeft Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten het
volgende geschreven:
On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:27 AM, Chris Obdam wrote:
The AX 2.0 workgroup scope says :
Introduce the concept of more generic schema for sending/
requesting properties about attributes.
Does that main embedding something like AX Schema.org into AX or
does it mean that a new schema should be created for requesting
properties?
If the latter, is it possible to embed AXSchema into AX2? Or isn't
it the right spot?
Consensus is leaning toward a JSON format compatible with PoCo. I
can think of ways to embed AXSchema in there, but nothing I'd want
to take the blame for.
--
j
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
