On 28-May-07, at 9:49 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
> On May 28, 2007, at 7:20, Claus Färber wrote:
>> Dmitry Shechtman schrieb:
>>> This is definitely an interesting proposal. However, it only
>>> attempts to
>>> solve the recycling problem, whereas canonical IDs would solve
>>> this and
>>> several
On May 28, 2007, at 7:20, Claus Färber wrote:
> Dmitry Shechtman schrieb:
>> This is definitely an interesting proposal. However, it only
>> attempts to
>> solve the recycling problem, whereas canonical IDs would solve
>> this and
>> several more.
>
> I think the best solution would be a Persis
Dmitry Shechtman schrieb:
> This is definitely an interesting proposal. However, it only attempts to
> solve the recycling problem, whereas canonical IDs would solve this and
> several more.
I think the best solution would be a Persistent Identifier. If the
OpenID Provider returns a different Per
Johannes Ernst wrote:
On May 14, 2007, at 9:12, Dick Hardt wrote:
The issue you bring up is a separate issue then the motivation for
recycling identifiers by large OPs.
What I'm saying is a superset of the issue discussed so far that
ought to use the same technical so
I believe that if we solve the "domain" issue -- which definitely
needs solving -- we automatically also have solved the "within
domain" issue, in which case no separate solution for the "within
domain" issue is needed and may actually be counter-productive.
On May 14, 2007, at 10:29, Dick
On 14-May-07, at 10:10 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
>
> On May 14, 2007, at 9:12, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
>> The issue you bring up is a separate issue then the motivation for
>> recycling identifiers by large OPs.
>
> What I'm saying is a superset of the issue discussed so far that
> ought to use the
On May 14, 2007, at 9:12, Dick Hardt wrote:
> The issue you bring up is a separate issue then the motivation for
> recycling identifiers by large OPs.
What I'm saying is a superset of the issue discussed so far that
ought to use the same technical solution because the problem is the
same: "X
The issue you bring up is a separate issue then the motivation for
recycling identifiers by large OPs.
Your point is how does a user transfer from one identifier to another.
The issue at hand is the scarcity of namespace.
-- Dick
On 14-May-07, at 8:48 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
> These seems
These seems to be an assumption on this thread that
- identifiers at the same domain name get recycled often (e.g.
example.com/jim)
- domain names don't get recycled often (e.g example.com itself)
I would suggest that any proposed solution needs to be able to deal
with domain names as well t
Hi Dick,
I'm very glad to see that we're making progress in resolving the OpenID
recycling issue.
It would seem to make sense to embed the fragment into the document
referenced by the OpenID, however in the interest of keeping the OP
discovery implementation simple and robust, I'd be in favor of
Dick,
This is definitely an interesting proposal. However, it only attempts to
solve the recycling problem, whereas canonical IDs would solve this and
several more.
Will this break existing OpenID 1.1 RPs? Which ones? Is this going to be
an issue for them?
As far as I can tell, this would b
I had the good fortune of discussing URIs, URLs, fragments and the
recycling issue with a number of smart W3C people at WWW2007 and they
did not respond with horror at the concept of using fragments to
recycle identifiers. Given this is a requirement for large OPs, here
is a proposal. A num
12 matches
Mail list logo
