[OpenID] [Fwd: Re: guid openid delegate]

[Jack]

Johnny Bufu wrote:
> 
> On 13-Sep-07, at 12:07 PM, Jack wrote:
> 
>> Sorry (again), replied to Johnny when I meant to reply to the list.
>> 
>> 
>> Johnny Bufu wrote:
>>> On 13-Sep-07, at 10:36 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> B1. Change  "Identifier obtained by normalizing
>>>> (Normalization)" to "Identifier obtained as a result of
>>>> normalizing (Normalizing) and performing discovery on"
>>> 
>>> For URLs, the claimed identifier is not the result of the (las
>>> part of) discovery; it is determined only by the normalization
>>> (i.e. the URI-normalized form of the user-supplied id after
>>> following all redirects).
>> 
>> Oh! That comes as quite a surprise. Perhaps it should be made
>> explicit.
> 
> Any suggestions? To me it looks clear enough:
> 
> - terminology section (where the term is introduced) - reinforced in
> the normalization section, bullet 4.

The former section-reference is both accurate and specific. The second
is irrelevant - it just elucidates "normalize".

So I'm not saying the spec is wrong, or even lacking; just that it seems
to me to violate the Principle of Least Astonishment.

What is surprising that a suppliedId such as http://user.example.com/ is
not to be subjected to discovery, whereas user.example.com/ must be
discovered, in addition to being normalized (and both URLs must be
subjected to normalisation, yeah? Just because you're a proper URL
doesn't mean you're normalised).

So absent a clear description of the rationale behind the various
decisions that have been made, one would assume that a suppliedId that
is an incomplete URL, once completed, should then be treated in the same
way as a suppliedID that is a complete URL.

-- 
Jack Cleaver.