On 1/30/07, Josh Hoyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*snip*
While it is true that since the link relationship names changed, the
openid2 is technically redundant, I think it is much clearer to
everybody what is going on if the link relationship contains the
version number. If the protocol version
Kerr
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:50 PM
To: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: DRAFT 11 - FINAL?
On 1/31/07, Martin Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the spec is misusing the AJAX abbreviation a bit here, since
the usual approach to doing this doesn't involve XMLHttpRequest at
all
On 1/31/07, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm happy changing it from AJAX. I think it was originally used since
AJAX is a bit overloaded already and people normally understand the
flashy non-reloading sort of thing when saying it.
I suppose some people might, but for a developer
@openid.net
Subject: Re: DRAFT 11 - FINAL?
On 1/30/07, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of openid2.* though it was the simplest method
of fixing up HTML discovery to work with multiple protocol versions. I
know Josh thought about this more than I did though.
1
The openid2.* links bug me a little.. but due to no openid.ns being
defined in the 1.x protocol, maybe there is no other way to specify by
HTML discovery that your OP is 2.0 capable. Would it be bad to have a
openid.version link instead?
Also, the spec mentions AJAX interactions, but I don't see
checkid_immediate between the server and OP,
with an AJAX response from your server to application.
--David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rowan Kerr
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:02 PM
To: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: DRAFT 11 - FINAL
On 1/30/07, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of openid2.* though it was the simplest method
of fixing up HTML discovery to work with multiple protocol versions. I
know Josh thought about this more than I did though.
1. Before authentication is initiated, the RP
Considering draft 11 hasn't been published yet, I don't see how we can
make it final at this point. In addition, the file you link to is a few
patches old. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, Josh, Johnny, and I do
have a process to this madness.
I know you know that we're really close, there
OK -- would it be possible to keep the list apprised of the progress
and post the issue and resolution once you are done this afternoon?
-- Dick
On 18-Jan-07, at 3:55 PM, Recordon, David wrote:
Considering draft 11 hasn't been published yet, I don't see how we can
make it final at this
