Hi folks, Breno just pointed out to me that the UI extension's draft spec, Discovery section <http://wiki.openid.net/f/openid_ui_extension_draft01.html#anchor6> calls out two type URIs that should appear in an OpenID identifier's XRDS document. But neither of these type URIs is the type URI of the extension itself.
DotNetOpenId and DotNetOpenAuth both take for granted that an extension's primary type URI (the one that appears at the value of the openid.ns.* someext* parameter) is expected to appear in an XRDS document if the OP supports that extension. Maybe that wasn't a spec'd out behavior for OpenID extensions, but it seems to hold true for the OPs I tested at the time. While it's neat to see the UI extension include a specific Discovery section that allows OPs to declare their support for the different parts of the extension, there's no mention of declaring the extension itself. As a result, RPs (at least the ones based on DNOI/DNOA) may not think that an OP supports the UI extension when in fact it does. So I'm requesting two things: 1. Can we get the UI extension DRAFT spec updated to include that the http://specs.openid.net/extensions/ui/1.0 URI be included in the XRDS document? 2. Can we standardize on the idea that an extension's type URI should be in an XRDS document if the OP supports it so that RPs can easily scan for all supported extensions? (this would be in addition to any additional type URIs the extension wants to define and advertise) What do you all think? -- Andrew Arnott "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
