<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Yes the point being that while everyone had the same AX book they seem to be reading from different chapters.<div><br></div><div>In my OSIS testing I realized that AX is facing adoption resistance because of different high-level interpretations of how it aught to work.</div><div><br></div><div>The spec per se is fine, we are missing the high level interop guidelines.</div><div><br></div><div>That is why when someone on the list pointed to google as an example of how to solve the verified email issue with AX, </div><div>I thought it was a good idea to consider how google is doing it . They are interpreting things differently. </div><div><br></div><div>That may be the best solution but we should explore the consequences of going in that direction.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div>John Bradley</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On 3-Apr-09, at 10:42 PM, <a href="mailto:general-request@openid.net">general-request@openid.net</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:41:34 -0700<br>From: SitG Admin <<a href="mailto:sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com">sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [OpenID] About Facebook, MySpace and OpenID<br>To: Andrew Arnott <<a href="mailto:andrewarnott@gmail.com">andrewarnott@gmail.com</a>><br>Cc:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br>Message-ID: <f06110401c5fca2916b1e@[192.168.0.2]><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"<br><br><blockquote type="cite">'if_available' suggests if the OP happens to know it, then the RP<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">wants it. This isn't a 'if_user_opts_in' parameter. Which makes it<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">basically the same as 'required', except the OP can feel less badly<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">about not supplying it.<br></blockquote><br>This may be an attempt at convenience for the user. When the RP<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>doesn't know how many of its "optional" fields a user may want to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>fill out, it can't guess which ones to put as "required" so the OP<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>will respond - and the RP doesn't want to pose an inconvenience upon<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>the user to type in fields manually just because the user wasn't<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>asked for them originally.<br><br>That's how I thought AX *worked*, or was supposed to: the user could<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>click on "fill out this data automatically from my OP", and the RP<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>would send the user back to their OP just long enough to do so.<br><br>-Shade<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>