<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><body>
<pre>I think it will be "http://openid.net/specs/connect/1.0/#issuer" instead of "http://openid.net/specs/connect/1.0/issuer". </pre>
<pre>By doing so, clicking on the link will make the browser jump to the intended section. </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre>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. </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre>So even if we are not using "http://openid.net/specs/connect-userinfo/1.0/" in the protocol, we need to decide on it. </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre>Do we have consensus on using "-" as the delimiter for the sub-specs and bindings? Or do we want "/"? </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre>By the way, most referenced URL will be that of HTTP Redirect Binding. Is it OK to be </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre> http://openid.net/specs/connect-http-redirect-binding/1.0/ </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre>or do we want it to be</pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre> http://openid.net/specs/connect/http-redirect-binding/1.0/ ? </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre>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. </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre>=nat</pre>
<pre>
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@lists.openid.net
> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces@lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of
> sakimura
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 1:34 AM
> To: openid-specs-ab@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@lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
</pre>
</body></html>