[OpenID] experimental namespace for openid.net

[SitG Admin]

>These elements will take on the default
>namespace.

Okay. This makes a lot more sense than not having any namespaces at all.

Like if the anti-Network-Neutrality advocates were saying "Let's just 
not have any bandwidth at all." - establishing private lines must, by 
definition, create bandwidth (even if they're not using the normal 
bandwidth).

It seems to me that, by using their own namespace (restraining 
interop with the larger XRI world), they are making things simpler 
for themselves at the outset with a private namespace. Later, they 
can always create a relay for communicating with other XRI 
namespaces, or even switch to a general implementation for natural 
compatibility with the public XRI namespace.

Complicating matters, they propose to actually use *openid.net's* 
namespace instead of their own, but this actually makes things 
simpler because any 3rd parties who step in later (to test 
interoperability) won't have to demarcate multiple namespaces to 
account for each Provider that has *joined* Google in experimenting 
with this; they just have to look for the single namespace at 
"openid.net".

Control is held by the Foundation, which can shut things down if any 
participating party abuses the feature. When an experiment is deemed 
successful (enough to develop into a spec), and accepted by the 
Foundation, the same practice naturally migrates from openid.net to 
various providers "in the wild". I'm not seeing anything broken here. 
Does it need to be fixed?

-Shade