WebFinger at Google

[Chris Messina]

That is where rel-me falls down in this application. It certainly expresses
equivalency, but without indicating where to go to perform *authentication*,
you could specify any number of rel-me links without giving the RP any idea
of where to go to validate the user.

It's also not possible to use more than one rel value, so we're stuck having
to pick one.

What is the specific problem with .../provider [1] again?

Chris

[1] http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0/provider

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Allen Tom <atom at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

>  rel=me seems to make more sense, however, not all rel=me URLs are OpenID
> enabled.
>
> Allen
>
>
> On 3/22/10 1:57 PM, "John Panzer" <jpanzer at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> PROPOSED:
> acct:bob at gmail.com <mailto:acct%3Abob at gmail.com <acct%3Abob at gmail.com>>
>  maps with rel=http://openid.net/identity to
> http://www.google.com/profiles/3922823829347234234
>
>
> =="My OpenID identity is this OpenID over there" -- reads okay, but
> wouldn't rel="me" be the same?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>
>


-- 
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate, Google

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100322/6bc34232/attachment.htm>