Backwards compatibility

Brad Fitzpatrick brad at
Tue Sep 26 00:41:41 UTC 2006

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Dick Hardt wrote:

> So you would not support inames,

LiveJournal would not.

> Yadis,

We already do!  And will continue to improve that as spec changes.

> nonces,

Already do, via the Net::OpenID::* modules, which do it for me, in OpenID 1.x.

> IdP-driven identifier selection on LiveJournal?

Not right away.  Not sure there's a demand from the userbase, nor is it
exciting enough in the they-just-don't-know-it-yet way to be worth pushing
on them.

> I guess that would include attribute exchange as well?

I thought that was an extension, so can't I use it without 2.0?  I can
use JanRain's SimpleReg attribute exchange extension with 1.x.

> Given that, I would say calling this OpenID 2.0 is a misnomer.
> usually a new version name implies there is some incompatibility, and
> there is not anything worth you upgrading, then perhaps this should
> just be called OpenID 1.2 and use the extension mechanism to add in
> other things so that message compatability is not broken.

I'm not against that.  I don't really care what it's called.  I just don't
think there's a reason to break all the existing OpenID users and confuse
the spec just to rename some stuff.

Look at successful HTTP-NG (HTTP/2.0) became.  Compare with the HTTP/1.0
... HTTP/1.1, DAV, etc.

OpenID just needs some HTTP/1.0 -> HTTP/1.1-style loving from what I can
tell (that is, spec clarifications, few changes).  Nothing's fundamentally
broken from what I've heard.

> ie. new parameters and functionality would be all discovered and only
> invoked if the IdP supports it

I'm all about capability advertisements and discovery.

- Brad

More information about the specs mailing list