[OpenID] [foaf-protocols] Lack of browser support

[Story Henry]

On 26 Feb 2010, at 16:16, SitG Admin wrote:

>> If it is not a problem that the information be public then this is very nice.
> 
> Could it be encrypted in the FOAF file, and the user supply a separate (decryption) password to authorized parties directly? It would impose an extra burden on the user (though their clients/blackberries could presumably be made to store all of their passwords for them), but if they want that added layer of privacy - well, optional "Security on these clients requires user reciprocation to complement our efforts."

That seems a bit complicated, though perhaps it could work. Better would be to use access control, so that relying parties that identified themselves could have access to the private foaf.

I suggested a detailed solution to this problem recently on the foaf and openid mailing lists recorded here:

 http://markmail.org/thread/oub3mhq4q4lpazwh

But for the moment I think one can get very far without requiring this.

Henry


> 
> -Shade
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general