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

[Allen Tom]

+1

Allen


Breno de Medeiros wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20090722/5dcd1d1f/attachment.htm>