Problems with OpenID and TAG httpRange-14

[Johnny Bufu]

On 19-Mar-08, at 2:51 AM, Noah Slater wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 07:54:20PM -0700, Kevin Turner wrote:
>> A request for an OpenID Identifier SHALL NOT issue a 303 response.
>
> This is even worse and also backwards incompatible. All the OpenIDs  
> that
> currently use 303 redirects, including mine, will all break.

By all standing definitions (both v1.x and v2.0), your http:// 
bytesexual.org/ URL is *NOT* an OpenID. You are the only one calling  
and expecting it to be, based on your interpretation and proposed  
changes.

> Well, from my perspective it seems like eventually most people on  
> the list
>  agreed that it was an issue as outlined by my use case. In any  
> case, the
>  simplest things are often discussed at great length, if for not  
> other reason
>  than the colour of the bikeshed, so this is a non sequitur.

Note that there have been objections to your proposal, which have not  
been answered. This effectively accounts to a veto for the proposed  
changes getting accepted.

>> On 19-Mar-08, at 7:54 AM, James Henstridge wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2008, Noah Slater <nslater at bytesexual.org> wrote:
>>>>> That seems to be an argument for making no changes.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's an argument to make the backwards incompatible change  
>>>> that effects
>>>>  people in the smallest possible negative way. Your suggestion  
>>>> replaces one
>>>>  non-compliant usage of HTTP with another, which is hardly a  
>>>> step forward.

Per the above, the case of making no changes at all still stands.


Johnny