[OpenID] [xri-comment] My Feedback for XRD Vrsion 1.0

[SitG Admin]

>But it is certainly the case that I think it would be bad design to 
>simply let Subject be optional and then have someone else come along 
>and put a new element in the schema simply because their Subject is 
>called Host (or Slartibartfast, or whatever), but still has the 
>semantics that it is the "subject of the resource links contained in 
>the XRD".

Or a URI with the name "<not a public Subject>" so that XRD crawlers 
will reject/discard it.

>I don't think that it is "astronaut architecture" to suggest that if 
>you logically always have a subject of an XRD document that the 
>Subject XML element should always appear. It just seems like common 
>sense.

Logically, every (non-bot) Internet user has a unique, unimitable, 
and unchangeable identification number consisting of the 
intersections of their birth in time/space (coordinates). Solving the 
Identity problem seems like it could be addressed by just referencing 
latitude, longitude, sea level, and DoB; make all this data mandatory 
when posting, right? If someone is doing anything on the internet, 
that someone will logically have those time/space coordinates 
associated with their Identity, right? Marking all online activities 
with that metadata just seems like common sense.

Actually, this metadata *isn't* even relevant - it's out of scope. I 
spoke of "the Identity problem" as if there were only one, but what 
actually defined "common sense" for that example was an unspoken 
demand for trust (no matter the cost), which presumptively associated 
"trustworthiness" with "XRD documents". That's the typical use-case, 
yes. But embedding trust in XRD (as a requirement) would contaminate 
the concept; it's a tool, let us decide how we (per case) use it.

-Shade