[OpenID] experimental namespace for openid.net

[Santosh Rajan]

Yes but I think we need to get pragmatic about this. Which parser is
validating xrds XSD today? I am not aware of anyone doing that, atleast not
any RP software I know of. I am not an XML expert either. But hardly anybody
validates XSD. RP's can always switch it off just in case. They would only
be happy to do that :)



Dirk Balfanz wrote:
> 
> 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
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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-tp24432471p24485262.html
Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.