Forwarding to the right mailing list...<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Andrew Arnott <<a href="mailto:andrewarnott@gmail.com">andrewarnott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Yes, that helps, thanks. In DotNetOpenId, I just left the type URIs for attribute exchange as the "string" type rather than the System.Uri type, since the Uri type in .NET doesn't allow for XRIs from what I have seen. I'm glad I made the right choice.<div>
<div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:03 AM, John Bradley <<a href="mailto:john.bradley@wingaa.com" target="_blank">john.bradley@wingaa.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div><span>Hi Andrew,</span><div><br></div><div>You are correct that a XRI is a type of URI. The soon to be registered scheme will be xri:</div><div><br></div><div>With the scheme it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Without having the XRI spec finalized by an OASIS vote, we ran the danger of having our registration rejected, given the W3Cs reaction to the XRI 1.0 spec.</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand some people don't think XRI 2.0 should be accepted as a spec without first being registered as a scheme. </div>
<div><br></div><div>We made the decision to register the URI scheme after the XRI 2.0 spec passes the final OASIS vote.</div><div><br></div><div>To your point.</div><div><br></div><div>While you can use any URI in attribute exchange, the best practice is to use a resolvable URL.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sxip and others started registering URLs that can be used in AX.</div><div><br></div><div>What are the best and most interoperable URLs to use is a larger conversation.</div><div><br></div><div>I hope this clears it up slightly for you.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div>=jbradley</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Andrew Arnott <<a href="mailto:andrewarnott@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrewarnott@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:19 PM<br>Subject: Re: [OpenID] W3C TAG recommends against XRI<br></div><div><div></div><div>To: Andy Powell <<a href="mailto:andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk" target="_blank">andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk</a>><br>
Cc: OpenID List <<a href="mailto:general@openid.net" target="_blank">general@openid.net</a>><br><br><br>Since the introduction of use of XRIs in the OpenID and extension<br>specs, I've been confused when URI is used in the spec in knowing<br>
whether this had to be a standard-looking http: URL or if an XRI is an<br>acceptable URI. Is XRI a specific type of the more general URI?<br><br>One specific instance of confusion for me is in Attribute Exchange<br>spec where it discusses the attribute type URI. Must this be a valid<br>
http: URL, or can it be an XRI or some other string format?<br><br>Thanks.<br><br>On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Andy Powell <<a href="mailto:andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk" target="_blank">andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In a message to the W3C Technical Architecture Group list yesterday<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0078.html" target="_blank">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0078.html</a><br>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Tim Berners-Lee and Stuart Williams, co-chairs of the TAG state<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">categorically, "We are not satisfied that XRIs provide functionality not<br>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">readily available from http: URIs. Accordingly the TAG recommends<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">against taking the XRI specifications forward, or supporting the use of<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">XRIs as identifiers in other specifications".<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Is there a view here about whether this has any impact on the current<br>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">adoption of XRI in the OpenID 2.0 spec?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Andy<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">--<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/" target="_blank">http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/</a><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://efoundations.typepad.com/" target="_blank">http://efoundations.typepad.com/</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk" target="_blank">andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk</a><br>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">+44 (0)1225 474319<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">general mailing list<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:general@openid.net" target="_blank">general@openid.net</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br>
</blockquote><br><br><br>--<br>Andrew Arnott<br>_______________________________________________<br>general mailing list<br><a href="mailto:general@openid.net" target="_blank">general@openid.net</a><br><a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br>
<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br></div></div>-- <br><font color="#888888">Andrew Arnott
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Andrew Arnott