On 4-Jun-07, at 7:51 AM, Granqvist, Hans wrote: >> So I ask again - does anyone see any issues with the >> fragments being used like this: >> >> http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2007-May/001767.html >> > > Seems reasonable in essence. But it adds complexity and > removes some immediacy of URL identifiers-as-is. > > Do fragments need special handling just to handle id > recycling risks? > > I'm probably missing some context, but can't the issuing OP > make sure to issue unique IDs, like http://example.com/user1234 > instead of http://example.com/user#1234 ?
Just to clarify the issue: Users like to have memorable usernames, and likely memorable OpenIDs. So http://example.com/hans would be a desirable URL at example.com. For OPs with literally 100Ms of users, http://example.com/hans would be a coveted URL and if it is not being used, example.com would like to issue it to someone else. I think the tradeoff of RPs understanding to strip fragments when displaying them is worth removing a barrier for very large OPs from joining OpenID. -- Dick _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
