[Openid-specs-ab] Spec URL

[Mike Jones]

If we follow existing OpenID conventions, the specs will be located at URLs like http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html and http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.txt - just like they are now.  The spec location URLs are arguably completely separate from the URIs in the specs used to identify logical entities.  In particular, while http://openid.net/specs/connect/1.0/ is a perfectly good URI, I don’t expect there to be any document at that URL.  For that reason also, changing to “#issuer” rather than “issuer” seems like it’s overly complicating the issuer URI.

Unless you agree, I suspect this whole issue will be more productively resolved on the next spec call, rather than in e-mail.  Until then, let’s leave the URIs in the specs and URLs of the spec locations as they are.

                                                            Best wishes,
                                                            -- Mike

From: sakimura [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 2:26 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: RE: [Openid-specs-ab] Spec URL


I think it will be "http://openid.net/specs/connect/1.0/#issuer" instead of "http://openid.net/specs/connect/1.0/issuer".

By doing so, clicking on the link will make the browser jump to the intended section.



The reason I raised this issue is because it is very closely related to the spec publishing point which enables the above behavior, which we would be doing in next couple of days.



So even if we are not using "http://openid.net/specs/connect-userinfo/1.0/" in the protocol, we need to decide on it.



Do we have consensus on using "-" as the delimiter for the sub-specs and bindings? Or do we want "/"?



By the way, most referenced URL will be that of HTTP Redirect Binding. Is it OK to be



  http://openid.net/specs/connect-http-redirect-binding/1.0/



or do we want it to be



  http://openid.net/specs/connect/http-redirect-binding/1.0/ ?



Now that I have encountered with this example, it just occurs to me now that the later seems to be more consistent in the sense that "/" represents the hierarchic relationship and "-" is just a replacement for a space, but I can live either way.



=nat



On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:58:04 +0000, Mike Jones wrote:

> http://openid.net/specs/connect/1.0/ works for me (and then we can

> have URIs like http://openid.net/specs/connect/1.0/issuer as well).

>

> I don't see a reason to have URIs for the related specs, other than

> perhaps on a case-by-case basis.  But if we do need them, they should

> probably be as you suggest below in option 1.

>

>                              -- Mike

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net

> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of

> sakimura

> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 1:34 AM

> To: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net

> Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Spec URL

>

>  On Monday call, we agreed to use

>

>    http://openid.net/specs/connect/1.0

>

>  as the spec identifier URL for the core.

>

>  On the hind site, this may not be optimal. At the very least, we

> probably want to put the traling slash "/".

>  Otherwise, we would not be able to make that a publishing point for

> multiple representation of the same spec unless we do something

> creative  with mod_rewrite. I would rather use Apache's default

> content  negotiation capability.

>

>  We also have to decide on the URL for all the other companion specs.

>  Would they be something like:

>

>    http://openid.net/specs/connect-userinfo/1.0/

>    http://openid.net/specs/connect-framework/1.0/

>

>  etc.?

>

>  In that case, would it be more appropriate to make the core like below?

>

>    http://openid.net/specs/connect-core/1.0/

>

>  Other option (Option 2) is like:

>

>    http://openid.net/specs/connect/core/1.0/

>    http://openid.net/specs/connect/userinfo/1.0/

>

>  etc. for the individual specs, and

>

>    http://openid.net/specs/connect/1.0/

>

>  for the "Index" page giving the list of all of the sub-specs.

>

>  I am fine either-way, but Option 2 seems a little more attractive in

> the sense that it has grouping notion embodied.

>

>  Thoughts?

>

>  =nat

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Openid-specs-ab mailing list

> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>

> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20110708/008bba48/attachment.html>