And I had responded: In which case, I will "attempt" to be satisfied ;-)
On Dec 14, 2006, at 16:35, Josh Hoyt wrote: > Oops, forgot to copy the list... > > On 12/14/06, Josh Hoyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 12/11/06, Johannes Ernst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> 9.1. Request Parameters >> ... >> > >>> Note: If an OP-SPecific Identifier is not supplied, the >> > >>> Claimed Identifier is considered to have the same as the OP- >> > >>> Specific Identifier. If neither value is present, the assertion >> > >>> is not about an identifier, and will contain other >> information in >> > >>> its payload, using extensions (Extensions). >> > > >> > > This doesn't seem right; I read your text like this: >> > > >> > >> "If an OP-Specific Identifier is not supplied" >> > > and therefore openid.identity = "http://openid.net/ >> > > identifier_select/2.0" >> > >> "the Claimed Identifier is considered to have the same as the >> OP- >> > >> Specific Identifier." >> > > openid.claimed_id = "http://openid.net/identifier_select/2.0" >> > > >> > > Which is fine, but doesn't cover the remaining cases, i.e. when >> > > Claimed Identifiers / OP-Specific Identifiers *are* supplied. >> > > >> > > The original / current wording does cover these cases, albeit I >> > > admit it is not very easy to read. >> > >> > So I modify my request to modify the wording in a way that it is >> > easier to read. >> >> Attempted. >> >> See http://openid.net/svn/listing.php?repname=specifications&path=% >> 2F&rev=201&sc=1 >> and http://openid.net/svn/listing.php?repname=specifications&path=% >> 2F&rev=209&sc=1 >> >> Josh _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs