<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Santosh Rajan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:santrajan@gmail.com">santrajan@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Ah, I agree, semantic problem here. It wasn't a question, it was a point I was making which I will rephrase here.<div><br></div><div>If you wan't to Reject the <Subject> of an XRD (includes host-meta), you need to prove that the XRD is "NOT a URI Addressable document". </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Still not quite sure what you mean. Are you talking about rejecting a <Subject> during resource resolution? Or are you talking about the fact that a <Subject> is optional in an XRD? Or are you talking about the fact that an XRD must be about a URI-addressable resource? </div>
<div><br></div><div>If it's the latter, I trust this helped: <a href="http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/2009-November/019500.html">http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/2009-November/019500.html</a></div>
<div> </div><div>Dirk.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><br></div><div>Simply making a statement to that effect is not enough. <div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Dirk Balfanz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:balfanz@google.com" target="_blank">balfanz@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On Sunday, November 1, 2009, John Panzer <<a href="mailto:jpanzer@acm.org" target="_blank">jpanzer@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Okay -- just assume I'm stupid about this: What's the question?<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>+1<br>
<br>
I also got lost in the variuos threads. Can you state concisely your<br>
objection? It's not clear from your first message.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Dirk<br>
</font><div><div></div><div><br>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Santosh Rajan <<a href="mailto:santrajan@gmail.com" target="_blank">santrajan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> John,If you want we can leave out my reference to the other threads. In this thread I am only posing one question which I think should be clear to everyone.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:02 PM, John Panzer <<a href="mailto:jpanzer@acm.org" target="_blank">jpanzer@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Santosh,<br>
><br>
> To tell you the truth, I did not understand your prior objections (and<br>
> the discussion has morphed a lot so it's difficult to understand the<br>
> current state of your objections). I also don't understand your<br>
> assertion below "if you want to buy..." and how it connects to your<br>
> prior objections. Note that I'm not asserting that your objections are<br>
> wrong, just that I don't understand them. I suspect there are lot of<br>
> people in the same boat as I am.<br>
><br>
> John<br>
><br>
> Santosh Rajan wrote:<br>
> I am calling for the rejection of webfinger,<br>
> host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons<br>
> for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will<br>
> understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last<br>
> few threads on this forum and you will know why.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Here I want to<br>
> start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a<br>
> "Resource".<br>
><br>
><br>
> "A<br>
> URI-addressable network document or service".<br>
><br>
><br>
> So If you want to<br>
> buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd<br>
> folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they<br>
> want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.<br>
><br>
><br>
> So I would like<br>
> to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.<br>
><br>
><br>
> This is not to<br>
> suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I<br>
> do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0<br>
> based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this<br>
> forum in the last week or so.<br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> <a href="http://hi.im/santosh" target="_blank">http://hi.im/santosh</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> general mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">general@lists.openid.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general" target="_blank">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> <a href="http://hi.im/santosh" target="_blank">http://hi.im/santosh</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br></div></div>-- <br><a href="http://hi.im/santosh" target="_blank">http://hi.im/santosh</a><br><br><br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>