OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the extension's type URI

[Breno de Medeiros]

I agree with Andrew on this suggestion. I don't think the UI WG proceeded
differently for any particular reason, except that no such convention
existed and we were not aware of side-effects previously. Regardless of
interoperability issues with existing libraries, I thinking having a type
URI for the extension is desirable from purely semantic standpoint (if a
human were to read such document, it would be more logically organized with
'umbrella' type URIs for the extension).

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi folks,
> Breno just pointed out to me that the UI extension's draft spec, Discovery
> section<http://wiki.openid.net/f/openid_ui_extension_draft01.html#anchor6> calls
> out two type URIs that should appear in an OpenID identifier's XRDS
> document.  But neither of these type URIs is the type URI of the extension
> itself.
>
> DotNetOpenId and DotNetOpenAuth both take for granted that an extension's
> primary type URI (the one that appears at the value of the openid.ns.*
> someext* parameter) is expected to appear in an XRDS document if the OP
> supports that extension.  Maybe that wasn't a spec'd out behavior for OpenID
> extensions, but it seems to hold true for the OPs I tested at the time.
>
> While it's neat to see the UI extension include a specific Discovery
> section that allows OPs to declare their support for the different parts of
> the extension, there's no mention of declaring the extension itself.  As a
> result, RPs (at least the ones based on DNOI/DNOA) may not think that an OP
> supports the UI extension when in fact it does.
>
> So I'm requesting two things:
>
>    1. Can we get the UI extension DRAFT spec updated to include that the
>    http://specs.openid.net/extensions/ui/1.0 URI be included in the XRDS
>    document?
>    2. Can we standardize on the idea that an extension's type URI should
>    be in an XRDS document if the OP supports it so that RPs can easily scan for
>    all supported extensions? (this would be in addition to any additional type
>    URIs the extension wants to define and advertise)
>
> What do you all think?
>
> --
> Andrew Arnott
> "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death
> your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
>


-- 
--Breno

+1 (650) 214-1007 desk
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
MTV-41-3 : 383-A
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20090722/6bf29bbb/attachment.htm>