brad at danga.com
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.
We already do! And will continue to improve that as spec changes.
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
> 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.
More information about the specs