<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The idea in principal appeals but a lot seems to be dependent on browser vendor support & OpenID in the browser should really have been (and should still be [1]) a no brainer for the browser vendors - I anticipate the same level of “uptake” by them for this.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>In short, until we can get the browsers to put social as a first class citizen (and look how long universal OpenSearch support in the browsers took) we have a battle.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Still, small steps so following with interests.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>/steven<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>http://livz.org<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[1] </span><a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/12/getting-openid-into-the-browse.html">http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/12/getting-openid-into-the-browse.html</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> openid-general-bounces@lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-general-bounces@lists.openid.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Panzer<br><b>Sent:</b> 07 June 2010 17:15<br><b>To:</b> SitG Admin<br><b>Cc:</b> openid-general@lists.openid.net; openid-specs@lists.openid.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [OpenID] Finally the Shit has hit the fan!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>It's not a centralized component[1].<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'm disappointed in Eran's post and wrote a response yesterday:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><a href="http://www.abstractioneer.org/2010/06/xauth-is-lot-like-democracy.html">http://www.abstractioneer.org/2010/06/xauth-is-lot-like-democracy.html</a><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Unfortunately, FUD sells and Eran's post is being retweeted and cited pretty widely. If you're going to agree with his objections, please read the rebuttals as well, and explain why you think they're not sufficient.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>-John<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>[1] There is nuance here which I'm ignoring in order to get a clear message across. The initial implementation has a single centralized piece, a DNS entry, but no centralized services or data storage at all. The end game is a fully decentralized system, but you need a path to get there. Go read the details at <a href="http://www.abstractioneer.org/2010/06/xauth-is-lot-like-democracy.html">http://www.abstractioneer.org/2010/06/xauth-is-lot-like-democracy.html</a> or at <a href="http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/04/using-xauth-to-simplify-social-web.html">http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/04/using-xauth-to-simplify-social-web.html</a>.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:40 AM, SitG Admin <<a href="mailto:sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com">sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>><a href="http://hueniverse.com/2010/06/xauth-a-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-idea/" target="_blank">http://hueniverse.com/2010/06/xauth-a-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-idea/</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Well, his points against it are quite valid. Having a centralized component to a decentralized architecture, especially one that all parties must *rely* upon, would violate the essential spirit of the idea.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(That said, if any of them *want* to do it, they may do so unofficially, with neither the involvement nor sanction of the community. Then, when the inevitable user backlash arrives - or, as you put it, "the shit hits the fan" - they alone suffer the reputation hit and loss to market share, compounded by having done so against the recommendations of the majority of the OpenID movement itself.)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I realize that you're in favor of the centralized component, but please do try to understand why this philosophy is diametrically opposed by OpenID.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>-Shade<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>general mailing list<br><a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net">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><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>