unnecessary fragmentation of the naming space.
Could be. I'm only interested in it myself for the access to *other* namespaces.
Describing it as 'moving forward' as if it was a train that could pull OpenID in its wake is optimistic in the extreme.
Try reading my post again, this time reading that paranthetical bit in the context of its preceding paragraph (about work on different trust systems proceeding independently, without being held back by a lack of success in any other), instead of OpenID as a whole not succeeding.
A more realistic assessment is that XRI is essentially dead for all purposes and OpenID is the only remaining chance for resurrection.
I see uses for XRI outside of OpenID - but, then again, perhaps I'm missing what XRI is "really" about, with my narrow-minded interest in the compatibility/interop possibilities.
is going to be any different to UDDI, RealNames, X.500, AOL corporate names or any of the other directory schemes that have come and gone.
I agree that XRI is related to OpenID, but I don't think they're connected; OpenID is an authentication encapsulation mechanism (limited to its own intrinsic security), XRI is a directory encapsulation mechanism (meant to be independent of the directory schema used to access it).
Of course, if I'm wrong, I should be corrected - so, Drummond? :) -Shade _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
