On 30-May-07, at 1:28 PM, Josh Hoyt wrote:

> Providers can also provide a redirect from the general form of the
> identifier to the current version of the identifier so that users do
> not need to remember or type the uniquified version. This is pretty
> much equivalent to the fragment scheme, except:
>   * It does not require spec changes (and is backwards-compatible!)
>   * The uniquifying component is user-visible
> I'd like to hear opinions on whether this unique-URL solution is good
> enough to solve the problem.

If Dick's original assessment on the requirements is right:

> Motivating use case:
>       For large OPs, user identifier namespace is a scarce resource and
> they need to be able to recycle human readable identifiers
> Design Considerations:
>       + Existing identifiers continue to work
>       + A human readable, memorable identifier can be entered by the user
> and displayed to other users
>       + A globally unique identifier is user by RPs that is different for
> different users of the same human readable identifier

... by pushing the uniquifying part into the displayed URL the  
displayed identifiers become unfriendly / human-unreadable.

It would be great the ones who consider identifier recycling a show  
stopper agreed that your proposal is good enough.


specs mailing list

Reply via email to