n 25-Sep-06, at 6:43 PM, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Whereas changing message formats is a lot more verbose of a change
> when it
> comes to describing old vs. new specs.
ok
>
> Anyway ... yeah, moving forward ... is anybody working on a test
> suite?
I thought that was LJ? ;-)
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Dick Hardt wrote:
> Given there is so little difference between 1.1 and 2.0, and one of
> them being support for extensions, I am confused
> why you would not just support 2.0.
You can do extensions with 1.1 too. It's just not really described well
enough.
But let me make i
On 25-Sep-06, at 5:41 PM, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
>> So you would not support inames,
>
> LiveJournal would not.
>
>> Yadis,
>
> We already do! And will continue to improve that as spec changes.
>
>> nonces,
>
> Already do, via the Net::OpenID::* module
On 25-Sep-06, at 5:31 PM, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
>> If this is the case (David Fuelling's summary) then backwards
>> compatibility of the spec is not needed. If backwards compatibility
>> is required, then the 2.0 spec ca
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Dick Hardt wrote:
> So you would not support inames,
LiveJournal would not.
> Yadis,
We already do! And will continue to improve that as spec changes.
> nonces,
Already do, via the Net::OpenID::* modules, which do it for me, in OpenID 1.x.
> IdP-driven identifier select
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Dick Hardt wrote:
> If this is the case (David Fuelling's summary) then backwards
> compatibility of the spec is not needed. If backwards compatibility
> is required, then the 2.0 spec can just say that 1.1 must also be
> supported.
>
> Although the s
If this is the case (David Fuelling's summary) then backwards
compatibility of the spec is not needed. If backwards compatibility
is required, then the 2.0 spec can just say that 1.1 must also be
supported.
Although the spec may require systems to be backwards compatible, I
would
sages.
--David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Fuelling
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 3:58 PM
To: 'Josh Hoyt'
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: RE: Backwards compatibility
Josh,
Just a point of clarification -- As worded, yo
On 25-Sep-06, at 11:37 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2006, at 11:05, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25-Sep-06, at 10:59 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
>>
>>>
> I don't understand why we should make it hard (impossible?) to
> use OpenID authentication with verbs other than POST.
>>>
On Sep 25, 2006, at 11:05, Dick Hardt wrote:
On 25-Sep-06, at 10:59 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
I don't understand why we should make it hard (impossible?) to
use OpenID authentication with verbs other than POST.
How would you propose OpenID use the other verbs?
If there a mechanism to
On 25-Sep-06, at 10:59 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
>
>>> I don't understand why we should make it hard (impossible?) to
>>> use OpenID authentication with verbs other than POST.
>>
>> How would you propose OpenID use the other verbs?
>
> If there a mechanism to authenticate an HTTP GET request (
I don't understand why we should make it hard (impossible?) to
use OpenID authentication with verbs other than POST.
How would you propose OpenID use the other verbs?
If there a mechanism to authenticate an HTTP GET request (as OpenID
1.1 provides, of course), use the exact same mechanis
>> I am not sure what advantage there is to using other verbs. Would
>> you elaborate on the advantages?
>
> I'm not sure I understand this question. Are you asking why
> standard HTTP has verbs other than POST? Or why things WebDav
> increased the list further?
no, I know why they have the
On Sep 25, 2006, at 2:20, Dick Hardt wrote:
On 21-Sep-06, at 11:15 PM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
Just one specific question:
On Sep 21, 2006, at 17:22, Dick Hardt wrote:
Also, I thought OpenID 2.0 was moving to POST instead of GET, so
that
will likely cause some incompatibilities.
I heard t
This
>> means that in 2.0 we need to both continue making the conscious
>> effort
>> to only change what is required, as well as to mark things which have
>> been deprecated though are still required in implementations for
>> backwards compatibility. While I agree t
means that in 2.0 we need to both continue making the conscious effort
> to only change what is required, as well as to mark things which have
> been deprecated though are still required in implementations for
> backwards compatibility. While I agree that the number of deployments
>
On 21-Sep-06, at 11:15 PM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
> Just one specific question:
>
> On Sep 21, 2006, at 17:22, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
>> Also, I thought OpenID 2.0 was moving to POST instead of GET, so that
>> will likely cause some incompatibilities.
>
> I heard this before somewhere, but so far I c
> To: specs@openid.net
> Subject: Backwards compatibility
>
> When making and evaluating proposals, there have been many references
> to backwards compatibility. I'm not sure that everyone has the same
> idea what it means to be backwards compatible.
>
> There are at
ly read 1.1 and not 2.0. This
> means that in 2.0 we need to both continue making the conscious effort
> to only change what is required, as well as to mark things which have
> been deprecated though are still required in implementations for
> backwards compatibility. While I agree that
to both continue making the conscious effort
to only change what is required, as well as to mark things which have
been deprecated though are still required in implementations for
backwards compatibility. While I agree that the number of deployments
is relatively small, we should do everything
Just one specific question:
On Sep 21, 2006, at 17:22, Dick Hardt wrote:
Also, I thought OpenID 2.0 was moving to POST instead of GET, so that
will likely cause some incompatibilities.
I heard this before somewhere, but so far I could not discern the
reasoning for it, nor who actually propo
that supports OpenID Authentication 1.1 and 2.0.
>
> Is my assumption correct?
>
> And if so, how do others answer Josh's question?
>
> =Drummond
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf
> Of Josh Hoy
20, 2006 1:31 PM
To: specs@openid.net
Subject: Backwards compatibility
When making and evaluating proposals, there have been many references
to backwards compatibility. I'm not sure that everyone has the same
idea what it means to be backwards compatible.
There are at least two meanings that
When making and evaluating proposals, there have been many references
to backwards compatibility. I'm not sure that everyone has the same
idea what it means to be backwards compatible.
There are at least two meanings that I can see:
1. Messages that are valid OpenID 2.0 messages are also
24 matches
Mail list logo
