Claus Färber wrote:
Marius Scurtescu schrieb:
The new attribute values are needed in order to signal an OpenID 2
provider.
Why is this necessary? Is OpenID 2 incompatible? In other words, what
happens if an OpenID 2 Relying Party tries to talk to an OpenID 1.x
Provider?
If the
Marius Scurtescu schrieb:
The new attribute values are needed in order to signal an OpenID 2
provider.
Why is this necessary? Is OpenID 2 incompatible? In other words, what
happens if an OpenID 2 Relying Party tries to talk to an OpenID 1.x
Provider?
If the OpenID 1.x Provider just ignores
On 18-May-07, at 1:00 AM, Dmitry Shechtman wrote:
7.3.3. HTML-Based Discovery
A LINK tag MUST be included with attributes rel set to
openid2.provider
and href set to an OP Endpoint URL
A LINK tag MAY be included with attributes rel set to
openid2.local_id
and href set to the end
On 5/18/07, Marius Scurtescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18-May-07, at 1:00 AM, Dmitry Shechtman wrote:
In order to be backwards compatible the HTML page should have two
sets of tags one for OpenID 1.1 and one for OpenID 2.0, both pointing
to the same OP endpoint URL. Otherwise an OpenID 1.1
On 18-May-07, at 11:45 AM, Josh Hoyt wrote:
On 5/18/07, Marius Scurtescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18-May-07, at 1:00 AM, Dmitry Shechtman wrote:
In order to be backwards compatible the HTML page should have two
sets of tags one for OpenID 1.1 and one for OpenID 2.0, both pointing
to the
On 5/18/07, Dmitry Shechtman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure that this will break a few implementations
It certainly will break PHP-OpenID.
Which implementation are you referring to as PHP-OpenID?
Josh
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
On 5/17/07, Alaric Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are 2 issues that I would like to see addressed.
1. Forcing Encryption, to protect users data en-route.
2. Validated assertions, validating certain bits of data with a third party.
I know both of these have come up before, but have
outstanding issues with the OpenID 2.0
Authenticationspecification
On 5/17/07, Alaric Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are 2 issues that I would like to see addressed.
1. Forcing Encryption, to protect users data en-route.
2. Validated assertions, validating certain bits of data with a third
On 5/17/07, Alaric Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hate to be a PITA but these issues were brought up a while ago by Eddy
Nigg and Myself.
I understand, but at that time, as now, I was trying to get the spec
to be finished. We've been in something of an informal feature-freeze
for a while.
