OpenID v.Next Core Protocol Charter

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

The reason the 2.0 spec is what it is is because it is designed around
the need to be compatible with the legacy browser systems.

3.0 is not going to make 2.0 disappear.

For 3.0 the priority should to make it work well on systems designed
to support it.


On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sxipper tried to do as much as was possible given the 2.0 spec.
> -- Dick
> On 2010-05-19, at 3:02 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> There are, Cardspace is one of them where a built in OP would be an option
>
>
>
> From: openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net
> [mailto:openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Allen Tom
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:54 PM
> To: Dick Hardt; OpenID Specs Mailing List
> Subject: Re: OpenID v.Next Core Protocol Charter
>
>
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> I think I agree with most of the stated goals, but I’m not quite sure about
> supporting active clients with OP functionality.  Are there examples of such
> clients today?
>
> Allen
>
>
> On 5/19/10 8:36 AM, "Dick Hardt" <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ·      enable support for a spectrum of clients, including passive clients
> per current usage, thin active clients, and active clients with OP
> functionality,
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/