That is where rel-me falls down in this application. It certainly expresses equivalency, but without indicating where to go to perform *authentication*, you could specify any number of rel-me links without giving the RP any idea of where to go to validate the user.
It's also not possible to use more than one rel value, so we're stuck having to pick one. What is the specific problem with .../provider [1] again? Chris [1] http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0/provider On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Allen Tom <[email protected]> wrote: > rel=me seems to make more sense, however, not all rel=me URLs are OpenID > enabled. > > Allen > > > On 3/22/10 1:57 PM, "John Panzer" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > PROPOSED: > acct:[email protected] <mailto:acct%[email protected] <acct%[email protected]>> > maps with rel=http://openid.net/identity to > http://www.google.com/profiles/3922823829347234234 > > > =="My OpenID identity is this OpenID over there" -- reads okay, but > wouldn't rel="me" be the same? > > > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs > > -- Chris Messina Open Web Advocate, Google Personal: http://factoryjoe.com Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
