Re: DRAFT 11 - FINAL?

2007-01-31 Thread Rowan Kerr
On 1/30/07, Josh Hoyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *snip* While it is true that since the link relationship names changed, the openid2 is technically redundant, I think it is much clearer to everybody what is going on if the link relationship contains the version number. If the protocol version

RE: DRAFT 11 - FINAL?

2007-01-31 Thread Recordon, David
Kerr Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:50 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: DRAFT 11 - FINAL? On 1/31/07, Martin Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the spec is misusing the AJAX abbreviation a bit here, since the usual approach to doing this doesn't involve XMLHttpRequest at all

Re: DRAFT 11 - FINAL?

2007-01-31 Thread Rowan Kerr
On 1/31/07, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm happy changing it from AJAX. I think it was originally used since AJAX is a bit overloaded already and people normally understand the flashy non-reloading sort of thing when saying it. I suppose some people might, but for a developer

RE: DRAFT 11 - FINAL? openid2

2007-01-31 Thread Manger, James H
@openid.net Subject: Re: DRAFT 11 - FINAL? On 1/30/07, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, I'm not a big fan of openid2.* though it was the simplest method of fixing up HTML discovery to work with multiple protocol versions. I know Josh thought about this more than I did though. 1

Re: DRAFT 11 - FINAL?

2007-01-30 Thread Rowan Kerr
The openid2.* links bug me a little.. but due to no openid.ns being defined in the 1.x protocol, maybe there is no other way to specify by HTML discovery that your OP is 2.0 capable. Would it be bad to have a openid.version link instead? Also, the spec mentions AJAX interactions, but I don't see

RE: DRAFT 11 - FINAL?

2007-01-30 Thread Recordon, David
checkid_immediate between the server and OP, with an AJAX response from your server to application. --David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rowan Kerr Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:02 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: DRAFT 11 - FINAL

Re: DRAFT 11 - FINAL?

2007-01-30 Thread Josh Hoyt
On 1/30/07, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, I'm not a big fan of openid2.* though it was the simplest method of fixing up HTML discovery to work with multiple protocol versions. I know Josh thought about this more than I did though. 1. Before authentication is initiated, the RP

DRAFT 11 - FINAL?

2007-01-18 Thread Dick Hardt
Hey List To deal with the recent security concern postings about OpenID, language was added to clarify a secure channel is needed between the OP and the end-user's machine. Are there any more issues with this specification: http://openid.net/specs/openid-authentication-2_0-11.html

RE: DRAFT 11 - FINAL?

2007-01-18 Thread Recordon, David
: DRAFT 11 - FINAL? Hey List To deal with the recent security concern postings about OpenID, language was added to clarify a secure channel is needed between the OP and the end-user's machine. Are there any more issues with this specification: http://openid.net/specs/openid-authentication-2_0

Re: DRAFT 11 - FINAL?

2007-01-18 Thread Dick Hardt
publish draft 11. Thanks, --David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dick Hardt Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:45 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: DRAFT 11 - FINAL? Hey List To deal with the recent security concern postings