Sure, though I think there has also been a desire to do a bit of an actual rev to SREG to be more of a 1.1 version in terms of either explicitly supporting additional fields (such as avatar) or allowing field names to be URIs themselves versus a hard-coded list of properties.
--David -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johnny Bufu Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:06 PM To: Josh Hoyt Cc: OpenID specs list Subject: Re: SREG namespace URI rollback After a chat with Josh, we settled our dispute by agreeing on the following: On 2-Apr-07, at 2:44 PM, Josh Hoyt wrote: > I think it would be reasonable to always use "sreg", if for no other > reason than for clarity, but re-using the Type URI as the namespace > alias instead of creating a new one does not imply that the alias must > be "sreg" when using OpenID 2. > > What if I put my proposal this way: > > If Simple Registration is used with OpenID 1, the arguments MUST be > prefixed with "openid.sreg." If Simple Registration is used with > OpenID 2, the arguments MUST be in the namespace > "http://openid.net/sreg/1.0"; The first bit allows a implementation of SREG1.1/OpenID2 to be seamlessly used in "compatibility mode" with OpenID1 messages, which (together with the last two items in the proposal) would eliminate the conflicts I was pointing out. Johnny _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
