Re: OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the extension's type URI

ribed 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 Subject: Re: OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the extension's type URI To: Andrew Arnott

Re: OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the extension's type URI

hould apply. John B. On 22-Jul-09, at 12:00 PM, specs-requ...@openid.net wrote: From: Breno de Medeiros Subject: Re: OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the extension's type URI To: Andrew Arnott Cc: specs@openid.net

Re: OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the extension's type URI

+1 Allen Breno de Medeiros wrote: 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 libr

Re: OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the extension's type URI

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 t

OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the extension's type URI

Hi folks, Breno just pointed out to me that the UI extension's draft spec, Discovery section calls out two type URIs that should appear in an OpenID identifier's XRDS document. But neither of these type URIs is the type URI of the