<div>FWIW, even though i don't see a practical application, it should be worth a look for the idea's inherent.</div><div><br></div><div><?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?></div><div><entry xmlns="<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom</a>"></div>
<div><br></div><div> <id>acct:host-meta @ <a href="http://example.com">example.com</a></id></div><div> </div><div> <link rel="alternate"</div><div> type="application/atom+xml"</div>
<div> href="<a href="http://example.com/.well-known/host-meta">http://example.com/.well-known/host-meta</a>"/></div><div> </div><div> <link rel="<a href="http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0/server">http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0/server</a>"</div>
<div> href="<a href="https://www.exampleprovider.com/endpoint">https://www.exampleprovider.com/endpoint</a>"/></div><div> </div><div> <link rel="<a href="http://ietf.org/service/resolve/xrd">http://ietf.org/service/resolve/xrd</a>"</div>
<div> type="application/xrd+xml"</div><div> href="<a href="http://example.com/getxrd">http://example.com/getxrd</a>"/></div><div><br></div><div></entry></div><div><br></div><div>You can see above an Atom entry document used for the host-meta.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The first element is the id element. Here we give an identity to the host-meta. I have chosen the acct scheme instead of http because the atom spec specifies that you SHOULD use a urn instead of a http uri. However I think it is easy to give a "valid" reason to use http, and i could just as well have used a http uri for the identity.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The first link element (atom specific) points to the actual document.</div><div><br></div><div>The second link element points to the host wide openid provider.</div><div><br></div><div>The third link element points to a service that maps a uri to an XRD available on the server. This is explained in a previous post of mine which I have copied below.</div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 7:48 AM, 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;">
One of the purposes of the host-meta is to map a given URI to its XRD available on the server. Currently this is done by using a URITemplate.<div><URITemplate><a href="http://example.com/getxrd?q=%7Buri%7D" target="_blank">http://example.com/getxrd?q={uri}</a><URITemplate></div>
<div><br></div><div>Instead can the host-meta define a resolver service on the host, that returns an XRD given the Subject URI? eg. The host-meta can define a service on the server that accepts a GET or POST request with a single parameter passed whose key is "subject", and "value" is the subject URI to be resolved. In this case we only need a URI to the service on the server and can be written like this. </div>
<div><br></div><div><link rel="<a href="http://ietf.org/service/resolve/xrd" target="_blank">http://ietf.org/service/resolve/xrd</a>"</div><div> type="application/xrd+xml"</div><div> href="<a href="http://example.com/getxrd" target="_blank">http://example.com/getxrd</a>"/></div>
<div><br></div><div>(the rel value is just an example)<br clear="all"><br></div><div>Advantages of this being</div><div>1) No need for template and template mapping</div><div>2) The idea is consistent with the host-meta being an aggregator of the XRD's available on the host.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Any reason this could be a bad idea?</div><div><br>-- <br><a href="http://hi.im/santosh" target="_blank">http://hi.im/santosh</a><br><br><br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://hi.im/santosh">http://hi.im/santosh</a><br><br><br>