Re: SREG namespace URI rollback
On 1-Nov-07, at 12:06 PM, David Recordon wrote: Sorry it took me a few days, but seems alright to me. I think a larger question would be if there should be any material differences with SREG 1.1 such as adding a few additional common fields. I believe Josh's argument back in April was that the URI should be the same exactly because there's no difference between 1.0 and 1.1 (except the openid.ns field / OpenID 2.0 compatibility). Modifying the substance of it would invalidate this argument and require different namespaces to identify each. I'm just an implementer here and I'm fine either way, just need to know what I can rely on. Thanks, Johnny ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Adding fields to SREG (was: Re: SREG namespace URI rollback)
On 11/1/07, David Recordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry it took me a few days, but seems alright to me. I think a larger question would be if there should be any material differences with SREG 1.1 such as adding a few additional common fields. -1 on adding anything to SREG; that's what Attribute Exchange is for. Josh ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Adding fields to SREG (was: Re: SREG namespace URI rollback)
What are the few additional common fields? On 11/1/07, Josh Hoyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/1/07, David Recordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry it took me a few days, but seems alright to me. I think a larger question would be if there should be any material differences with SREG 1.1 such as adding a few additional common fields. -1 on adding anything to SREG; that's what Attribute Exchange is for. Josh ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs -- Hans Granqvist, CTO Phone: +1 (408) 569-3117 http://www.yubico.com/ ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
