Where does PAPE fall short of offering that?<br clear="all"><br>--<br>Andrew Arnott
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Dick Hardt <<a href="mailto:dick@sxip.com">dick@sxip.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 class="Ih2E3d">On 27-Jun-08, at 4:00 PM, SitG Admin wrote:<br>
<br>
> I was reading this:<br>
> <a href="http://self-issued.info/?p=75" target="_blank">http://self-issued.info/?p=75</a><br>
> (Posted to the <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a> list by Mike Jones.)<br>
><br>
> I was disturbed to see, in the first paragraph, that OpenID would be<br>
> accepted from "two" Providers; this is exactly the kind of lock-in<br>
> that will effectively *lock-OUT* the small, independent Providers.<br>
<br>
</div>I agree.<br>
<br>
If we want to have an open web, then we need to put the choice of OP<br>
into the hands of the user, not the RPs.<br>
<br>
To do that, we need to evolve the protocol so that RPs don't feel they<br>
need to distinguish between OPs.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-- Dick<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
general mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>