No subject

were discussed.
HTTP based flow is just a binding. It probably would be inappropreate
to use http:
scheme for those "exotic" cases. xri: is supposed to be an abstract schema
which will be cast onto specific protocol schema given a context.
OK. We could use http: as an abstract schema as well, but then, for
most people,
it will not be clear if it is an abstract one or concrete one by looking at it.
So, introducing a new scheme would make less confusion.

Also, there were some consideration on the multilingualization as well.

=nat

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Dick Hardt <dick at sxip.com> wrote:
> Drummond, would be interested to hear your comments on this topic.
>
> -- Dick
>
> On 22-May-08, at 2:07 PM, Andy Powell wrote:
>
>> In a message to the W3C Technical Architecture Group list yesterday
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0078.html
>>
>> Tim Berners-Lee and Stuart Williams, co-chairs of the TAG state
>> categorically, "We are not satisfied that XRIs provide functionality
>> not
>> readily available from http: URIs.  Accordingly the TAG recommends
>> against taking the XRI specifications forward, or supporting the use
>> of
>> XRIs as identifiers in other specifications".
>>
>> Is there a view here about whether this has any impact on the current
>> adoption of XRI in the OpenID 2.0 spec?
>>
>> Andy
>> --
>> Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
>> http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
>> http://efoundations.typepad.com/
>> andy.powell at eduserv.org.uk
>> +44 (0)1225 474319
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/