[OpenID] Community Opinion on OID 2.1 Discovery and Identifiers...

[David Fuelling]

Replies inline...

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:03 PM, John Bradley <john.bradley at wingaa.com>wrote:

> I am referring to identifier abstraction to make certain that we clearly
> understand the need for a primary key vs a display identifier.
>

+1.  This is a very valid issue.


> We ran into this with XRI and the presumption that the claimed_id is what
> is displayed for the user.
>
> With XMPP identifiers you may have multiple identifiers that resolve to the
> same XRD and hence have the same claimed_id but may want your input
> identifier represented in some way.
>
> Perhaps we need more that one identifier at the API layer.
>

+1.


>
> What I am saying is that if the core spec assumes URI then there will be a
> built in bias as there is now.
>

Wondering _how_ you would describe an OpenID Identifier if it's not a
URI...would you specify string-text (with x,y, z, etc as allowed
characters)?  Or anything goes?

The only reason I ask is that is seems most Identifiers (in the generic
sense) are URI's with a scheme: (http://; xri://; ldap://; mailto:; uri://;
etc).

Are JID's not URI's?


> We need to consider how provider portability could
> be achieved or at-least not be precluded by core design choices.
>

+1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20090607/9bba9d0c/attachment.htm>