I agree with David, replying with "bullshit" is definitely not the way we want 
to interact.

Op 19 mei 2010, om 10:20 heeft David Recordon het volgende geschreven:

> Replying with "bullshit" isn't going to welcome anyone new into this 
> community. Please stop doing this; you've been asked many times.
> 
> Yes, we should increase the involvement of browser vendors and it's great 
> seeing the work that's happening around FireFox. I plan to track down that 
> team tomorrow and get a better understanding of what browser-based APIs 
> they're proposing and what information websites need to advertise to browsers.
> 
> --David
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Santosh Rajan <[email protected]> wrote:
> HA! BullShit!
> 
> You know what?. I am beginning to believe that we need get the browser 
> vendors to the OpenID community. Yes Google and Microsoft are already here, 
> but i don't think they are here in the capacity of "browser vendors". We also 
> need the mozilla, opera, safari guys.
> 
> And Mozilla has really been doing some good work in this area. Here is a link.
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Weave/Identity/Account_Manager/Spec/Latest
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM, David Recordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Coming out of some conversations at IIW today I've made some changes to the 
> proposal. Patch is attached, but they are:
>  - Allow passing in `user_id` as a hint when not using immediate mode in the 
> request. 
>  - Continue to allow users to enter URLs, email addresses, and click buttons 
> but the returned user identifier must be a HTTPS URI.
>  - Include the expiration time within the signature.
>  - Clarify how you verify if the token endpoint is authoritative for a given 
> user identifier.
>  - Simplify discovery by removing LRDD and using host-meta to determine the 
> server token endpoint on a per domain (or sub-domain) basis. We're having a 
> hard time finding use cases of running multiple different OpenID servers per 
> domain.
>  - Remove the separate user info API endpoint and instead make the user 
> identifiers a protected resource. Fetch the user identifier with an access 
> token and it returns basic profile information as well as if the access token 
> was issued by that specific user.
> 
> Thanks for all of the feedback and support both virtually and in person! I'm 
> planning to move this proposal into GitHub next week (and work with Eran to 
> actually format it like a spec) so that changes are easier to keep track of.
> 
> --David
> 
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://hi.im/santosh
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs

_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs

Reply via email to