<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><a href="http://www.axschema.org/types/">http://www.axschema.org/types/</a><div><br><div><div>On Nov 30, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"> On 12/01/2008 12:07 AM, Shane B Weeden: <blockquote cite="mid:OF02FEDD83.658ADB66-ON4A257511.007805EF-4A257511.007985F4@au1.ibm.com" type="cite"><br> <font face="sans-serif" size="2">I don't have any problem with the development and promotion of AX. The point was simply that we have an SREG 1.1 spec in draft, and I can't see any good reason for it to include in the 6th paragraph of section 4 ", and all included fields MUST be taken from the set of fields defined in this specification." It appears to be boxing something in that simply doesn't require a box. </font><br> </blockquote> <br> Or perhaps manage a list of agreed fields which may be taken depending on the purpose. This list could be extended by the different OP/RPs until must likely every possible field would be covered. This could get to some hundred or so, but I wouldn't mind, since an OP doesn't have to answer all fields, many which will be most likely optional.<br> <br> </div> _______________________________________________<br>general mailing list<br>general@openid.net<br>http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>