[OpenID] experimental namespace for openid.net

[Dirk Balfanz]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I am ok with Google using the openid.net namespace (first choice). If that
> is
> not possible then I prefer they use the default namespace instead of their
> own.
>

I'm not an XML expert, but I believe that a strict parser that tries to
verify the XRDS according to its XSD (
http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/2.0/specs/cd02/xrds.xsd,
http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/2.0/specs/cd02/xrd.xsd) would reject the XRDS
if UriTemplate and NextAuthority were in the default namespace.

Dirk.


>
>
> SitG Admin wrote:
> >
> >>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
> > _______________________________________________
> > general mailing list
> > general at openid.net
> > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
> >
> >
>
>
> -----
>
> Santosh Rajan
> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-experimental-namespace-for-openid.net-tp24432471p24483997.html
> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20090714/79e3c0ca/attachment.htm>