[OpenID] Calling for Rejecting webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd

[Dirk Balfanz]

On Sunday, November 1, 2009, John Panzer <jpanzer at acm.org> wrote:
> Okay -- just assume I'm stupid about this:  What's the question?
>


+1

I also got lost in the variuos threads. Can you state concisely your
objection? It's not clear from your first message.

Dirk

> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com> wrote:
> John,If you want we can leave out my reference to the other threads. In this thread I am only posing one question which I think should be clear to everyone.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:02 PM, John Panzer <jpanzer at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Santosh,
>
> To tell you the truth, I did not understand your prior objections (and
> the discussion has morphed a lot so it's difficult to understand the
> current state of your objections).  I also don't understand your
> assertion below "if you want to buy..." and how it connects to your
> prior objections.  Note that I'm not asserting that your objections are
> wrong, just that I don't understand them.  I suspect there are lot of
> people in the same boat as I am.
>
> John
>
> Santosh Rajan wrote:
> I am calling for the rejection of webfinger,
> host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons
> for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will
> understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last
> few threads on this forum and you will know why.
>
>
>   Here I want to
> start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a
> "Resource".
>
>
>   "A
> URI-addressable network document or service".
>
>
>   So If you want to
> buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd
> folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they
> want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.
>
>
>   So I would like
> to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.
>
>
>   This is not to
> suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I
> do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0
> based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this
> forum in the last week or so.
>
>
>   --
>   http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>
>
>