[OpenID] W3C TAG recommends against XRI

[Andrew Arnott]

Forwarding to the right mailing list...

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes, that helps, thanks.  In DotNetOpenId, I just left the type URIs for
> attribute exchange as the "string" type rather than the System.Uri type,
> since the Uri type in .NET doesn't allow for XRIs from what I have seen.
> I'm glad I made the right choice.
>
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:03 AM, John Bradley <john.bradley at wingaa.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>> You are correct that a XRI is a type of URI.  The soon to
>> be registered scheme will be xri:
>>
>> With the scheme it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation.
>>
>> Without having the XRI spec finalized by an OASIS vote, we ran the danger
>> of having our registration rejected,  given the W3Cs reaction to the XRI 1.0
>> spec.
>>
>> On the other hand some people don't think XRI 2.0  should be accepted as a
>> spec without first being registered as a scheme.
>>
>> We made the decision to register the URI scheme after the XRI 2.0 spec
>> passes the final OASIS vote.
>>
>> To your point.
>>
>> While you can use any URI in attribute exchange,  the best practice is to
>> use a resolvable URL.
>>
>> Sxip and others started registering URLs that can be used in AX.
>>
>> What are the best and most interoperable URLs to use is a larger
>> conversation.
>>
>> I hope this clears it up slightly for you.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> =jbradley
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott at gmail.com>
>> Date: Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OpenID] W3C TAG recommends against XRI
>> To: Andy Powell <andy.powell at eduserv.org.uk>
>> Cc: OpenID List <general at openid.net>
>>
>>
>> Since the introduction of use of XRIs in the OpenID and extension
>> specs, I've been confused when URI is used in the spec in knowing
>> whether this had to be a standard-looking http: URL or if an XRI is an
>> acceptable URI.  Is XRI a specific type of the more general URI?
>>
>> One specific instance of confusion for me is in Attribute Exchange
>> spec where it discusses the attribute type URI.  Must this be a valid
>> http: URL, or can it be an XRI or some other string format?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Andy Powell <andy.powell at eduserv.org.uk>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Arnott
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Arnott




-- 
Andrew Arnott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20080523/19333e66/attachment-0002.htm>