OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the extension's type URI
David Recordon
david at sixapart.com
Wed Jul 29 17:23:59 UTC 2009
Sounds good to me!
On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:23 PM, John Bradley wrote:
> +1 I think that advertising the extension itself is a good practice.
>
> A RP may prefer OPs that support the extension over ones that don't.
>
> That is the case for PAPE now as an example.
>
> With XRD most of that will be described in the OPs XRD rather than
> the users, but the same principal should apply.
>
> John B.
> On 22-Jul-09, at 12:00 PM, specs-request at openid.net wrote:
>
>> From: Breno de Medeiros <breno at google.com>
>> Subject: Re: OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the
>> extension's type URI
>> To: Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott at gmail.com>
>> Cc: specs at openid.net
>> Message-ID:
>> <29fb00360907221019t10a0393aydbae458ba8c662ba at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary=00151750e13a821afc046f4e91df
>>
>> --00151750e13a821afc046f4e91df
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> I agree with Andrew on this suggestion. I don't think the UI WG
>> proceeded
>> differently for any particular reason, except that no such convention
>> existed and we were not aware of side-effects previously.
>> Regardless of
>> interoperability issues with existing libraries, I thinking having
>> a type
>> URI for the extension is desirable from purely semantic standpoint
>> (if a
>> human were to read such document, it would be more logically
>> organized with
>> 'umbrella' type URIs for the extension).
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
More information about the specs
mailing list