+1 for leaving our XRI and Yadis.
Claus Färber wrote:
> Josh Hoyt schrieb:
>> On 5/17/07, Dmitry Shechtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> There has been a simplification suggestion floating around since long ago:
>>> resolve i-names via http[s]://xri.net/.
>> -1. If XRI is to be included, it shou
Josh Hoyt schrieb:
> On 5/17/07, Dmitry Shechtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There has been a simplification suggestion floating around since long ago:
>> resolve i-names via http[s]://xri.net/.
>
> -1. If XRI is to be included, it should be done the way that it's
> intended. One possible solut
: Friday, May 18, 2007 7:49 AM
To: OpenID specs list
Subject: Re: RFC: Final outstanding issues with the OpenID 2.0
Authenticationspecification
Josh Hoyt wrote:
> If these four issues are resolved, can we call the OpenID 2.0
> Authentication specification done? Speak up if you have any other
# I think in the past the idea was giving the HTML "form" element a
# specific name in addition to the text field. This thus makes it
# much easier to detect.
And I believe it was also suggested that this is out of scope for the
protocol spec itself and should be added to either another spec or a
y 18, 2007 12:47 AM
To: 'Boris Erdmann'; 'Josh Hoyt'
Cc: 'OpenID specs list'
Subject: RE: RFC: Final outstanding issues with the OpenID 2.0
Authenticationspecification
> As of today browsers are forced to make untenable assumptions to
> detect OPs or RPs. Read
&
> As a relative newcomer to the OpenID community, I realize this may have
> been debated endlessly already, and I may just be shouted down.
It definitely has been debated endlessly.
> Or am I alone here?
No, you aren't. There are many who agree with this entirely, some of whom
have expressed the
> -1. If XRI is to be included, it should be done the way that it's
> intended.
In that case, count my vote against including XRI in OpenID 2.0. Please note
that this has nothing to do with #6.
Regards,
Dmitry
=damnian
___
specs mailing list
specs@ope
On 5/17/07, Dmitry Shechtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a proposed solution that we had consensus on (Dick's
> > "fragment" proposal.)
>
> Would you please specify whom you are referring to by "we"? I understand
> that various matters are being discussed outside of this list, but shoul
On 5/17/07, Dmitry Shechtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "aside from XRI and Yadis"? XRI alone is twice as complex as OpenID 1.1!
>
> There has been a simplification suggestion floating around since long ago:
> resolve i-names via http[s]://xri.net/.
-1. If XRI is to be included, it should be don
> There is a proposed solution that we had consensus on (Dick's
> "fragment" proposal.)
Would you please specify whom you are referring to by "we"? I understand
that various matters are being discussed outside of this list, but shouldn't
the whole community be part of the decisions made?
I didn't
> I think this argument is bogus. There is hardly any additional
> complexity aside from XRI and Yadis. I'm willing to entertain
> suggestions for simplifying the handling of those discovery
> mechanisms. The specification is significantly *longer*, but that's
> primarily because it's much more rig
11 matches
Mail list logo
