Sounds good to me!
On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:23 PM, John Bradley wrote:
+1 I think that advertising the extension itself is a good practice.
A RP may prefer OPs that support the extension over ones that don't.
That is the case for PAPE now as an example.
With XRD most of that will be described in the OPs XRD rather than
the users, but the same principal should apply.
John B.
On 22-Jul-09, at 12:00 PM, specs-requ...@openid.net wrote:
From: Breno de Medeiros br...@google.com
Subject: Re: OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the
extension's type URI
To: Andrew Arnott andrewarn...@gmail.com
Cc: specs@openid.net
Message-ID:
29fb00360907221019t10a0393aydbae458ba8c66...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=00151750e13a821afc046f4e91df
--00151750e13a821afc046f4e91df
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I agree with Andrew on this suggestion. I don't think the UI WG
proceeded
differently for any particular reason, except that no such convention
existed and we were not aware of side-effects previously.
Regardless of
interoperability issues with existing libraries, I thinking having
a type
URI for the extension is desirable from purely semantic standpoint
(if a
human were to read such document, it would be more logically
organized with
'umbrella' type URIs for the extension).
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
