<div dir="ltr">I agree, which is why that Identifier that IDIB allows the user to input should be allowed to be an OP Identifier as well as the ordinary claimed/delegate identifier. Whatever the user types into this IDIB plugin should be discovered and the plugin initialized using those settings.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Dick Hardt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dick@sxip.com">dick@sxip.com</a>></span> 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 style=""><div class="Ih2E3d"><br><div><div>On 8-Aug-08, at 8:19 AM, Andrew Arnott wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><br>It seems to me that any extension doing this sort of thing (so consider this a wishlist item for IDIB) should accept an XRI or URI that the user is already using as his/her identifier, perform discovery on that, and read the XRDS file and set up all the Providers automatically.</div>
</blockquote><br></div></div>Millions of people have an OpenID today, they just don't know it. <div><br></div><div>Having the extension detect that the site I am on could be an OP would be more interesting.</div><div>
<br></div><div>Note that knowledge of the identifier is really not critical to the protocol -- knowledge of your OP is.</div><div><br></div><div>The user not needing to know their identifier(s) can dramaticly simply the user experience, which is another conclusion to be drawn from Tom Calthrop's post on ht<a href="http://www.barnraiser.org/" target="_blank">tp://www.barnraiser.org/</a></div>
<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>-- Dick</div></font></div></blockquote></div><br></div>