Bringing this back up as now with more extensions I think we need at
least some sort of naming scheme.
I'd propose we use for roots:
http://specs.openid.net/authentication/VERSION...
http://specs.openid.net/extensions/ABBREV/VERSION...
Then corresponding:
Drummond,
Thanks for the detailed response. BTW: Below, you'll see what is happening
when I use the Yadis diagnostic on the HXRI. I believe that users will, in
fact, expect XRI's, i-names, and HXRI's to be interchangeable. I'm using
2idi.com, so I guess I have to wait for them to put in the fix?
Hi Rowan
We will be releasing a tweaked version of the Attribute Exchange spec
tomorrow. Adds a simple way to support requested and receiving
multiple values for the same type.
The old properties list is here: (there is a link to archives at the
bottom of the specs page on OpenID.net)
Recordon, David wrote:
http://specs.openid.net/authentication/2.0/signon
http://specs.openid.net/authentication/2.0/server
http://specs.openid.net/authentication/2.0/identifier_select
These seem just fine to me.
(+1, I guess!)
So very verbose and organized. There is no need for an xmlns
On 1/5/07, Dick Hardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Attribute Type model is such that anyone with a domain can define
new attributes. No need for central control. We created a set of what
we thought were common attributes, but that does not mean anyone has
to use them.
Being able to define
True, though why not still use this XML structure and the
RetrievalMethod element within the XRDS so that can then point to a
remote KeyInfo element in another XML document?
--David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Grant Monroe
Sent:
+1. A lot of thought went into the KeyInfo element design.
And the spec can define a valid subset of KeyInfos, too, if needed.
-Original Message-
From: Recordon, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 09:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Grant Monroe
Cc:
That sounds fine. I have never heard of the RetrievalMethod element,
so I can't really speak to whether that is the way to go or not. Is it
part of XRDS?
On 1/5/07, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, though why not still use this XML structure and the
RetrievalMethod element within
On 1/5/07, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, it is still part of the KeyInfo element defined at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/#sec-KeyInfo.
Ok. I didn't realize that functionality was already defined. I think
that seems like a reasonable change. I can't say
Hopefully, everyone had the opportunity to read document I sent that outlines
the business scenario(s) we are interested in using OpenID for. Figured I would
start taking each theme and sharing requirements with the hope that others will
react.
The requirements for relationship are as
10 matches
Mail list logo