[Openid-specs-ab] Spec URL

Fri Jul 8 12:00:37 UTC 2011

Actually, back in Nov. 2010, a new URL syntax was decided to be:

http://openid.net/specs/<spec_abbrv>/<spec_ver>/#<feature>

See http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/2010-November/007303.html

I am just asking about the syntax for <spec_abbrv>.
Let us make the <spec_abbrv> syntax a topic of the next call.

Best,

=nat

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>wrote:

>  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****
>
> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab****
>
>

-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
http://twitter.com/_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20110708/8c5bfc23/attachment.html>