[OpenID] "Nightmare" article on OpenID

[Nathan]

No, a web scale open identification protocol should not be that easy to 
screw up that badly, it wasn't all his fault.

OpenID still needs a lot of work on the "open" part, the "id" part, and 
the "protocol" part, that's not me talking OpenID or talking badly of 
your hard work thus far, it's just recognizing that things like this 
shouldn't be happening.

ps: last time I tried to use an openid, my google one, it failed 
miserably so had to use myopenid - in fact every time I've had anything 
to do openid either as a developer or a user, myopenid has been the only 
one that worked properly. But even then, most consumers don't support 
the personal details so it's a bit of a pointless addition in many 
cases, saves approx zero work.

Best,

Nathan

Nat Sakimura wrote:
> I think we should make it clear that it is not Google but HE screwed it up by
> changing his realm, by which OpenID Auth 2.0 Protocol identifies the site.
> 
> =nat
> 
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Carsten Pötter
> <carsten.poetter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> OK, I missed that part. I also acknowledge that OpenID could be
>> easier, especially for RPs. But if there is no such thing as matching
>> users in the protocol, a developer has to do something about it.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Luke Shepard <lshepard at fb.com> wrote:
>>> Saying "he should have used Simple Reg or AX" misses his point. He did try
>>> that, but he found (as I and many others also have) that there is little
>>> consistency among providers as far as which attributes are returned or when.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carsten Pötter | notsorelevant.com/ | cpoetter.tumblr.com |
>> twitter.com/carstenpoetter | +49 173 31 03 815
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
> 
> 
>