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

[John Bradley]

+1 I think that advertising the extension itself is a good practice.

A RP may prefer OPs that support the extension over ones that don't.

That is the case for PAPE now as an example.

With XRD most of that will be described in the OPs XRD rather than the  
users, but the same principal should apply.

John B.
On 22-Jul-09, at 12:00 PM, specs-request at openid.net wrote:

> From: Breno de Medeiros <breno at google.com>
> Subject: Re: OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the
> 	extension's type URI
> To: Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott at gmail.com>
> Cc: specs at openid.net
> Message-ID:
> 	<29fb00360907221019t10a0393aydbae458ba8c662ba at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> 	boundary=00151750e13a821afc046f4e91df
>
> --00151750e13a821afc046f4e91df
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> 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).