"openid." name space of KeyValue Form

[Will Norris]

I've never thought of the "openid." prefix as part of the parameter  
name, even in URL form encoded messages... it's simply a namespace  
prefix to ensure URL parameters don't collide.  It's completely  
unnecessary in KVF encoded messages, and would add nothing but extra  
size to the payload.

You certainly don't need to add the prefix to KVF message to have  
consistency within an OpenID library.  For example, in the Internet2  
library that logic is entirely encapsulated within the message encoder  
and decoder.  Compare URLFormCodec[0] to KeyValueFormCodec[1].   
Everywhere else in the library, all message are treated exactly the  
same, regardless of how they were encoded on the wire.

[0]: http://svn.middleware.georgetown.edu/view/java-openid/trunk/src/main/java/edu/internet2/middleware/openid/message/encoding/impl/URLFormCodec.java?view=markup
[1]: http://svn.middleware.georgetown.edu/view/java-openid/trunk/src/main/java/edu/internet2/middleware/openid/message/encoding/impl/KeyValueFormCodec.java?view=markup


On Feb 7, 2010, at 4:22 AM, Paul E. Jones wrote:

> For use in Key-Value Form, I didn't see it as necessary when I  
> implemented
> the spec.  It seemed logical not the be there.
>
> The only reason why one might want to use this is to include some  
> kind of
> non-standard information.  Is that something folks would want to  
> encourage?
> Anyway, changing the spec to have "openid." there now would break  
> things, so
> I would not recommend it unless there was a really good reason.
>
> Paul
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-
>> bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
>> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:14 AM
>> To: openid-specs at lists.openid.net
>> Subject: Re: "openid." name space of KeyValue Form
>>
>> Hmmm
>>
>> That's a good question. The reason we put openid.* in the request and
>> response is that there may be other applications sharing the same
>> request/response. If so, it would be more consistent if we put  
>> openid.*
>> prefix to the keys of the direct response as well...
>>
>> Is it just an oversight, or did it have a good reason for it?
>>
>> =nat
>>
>> (2010/02/01 13:49), nara hideki wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of the good reason why "openid." name space to keys of
>>> Key-Value Form Encoding used for direct responses is dropped.
>>> I think that we MAY use "openid." name space.
>>>
>>> I'm very happy if someone give me a good cue to understand the
>> reason.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>> ----
>>> hdknr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> specs mailing list
>>> specs at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nat Sakimura (n-sakimura at nri.co.jp)
>> Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
>> Tel:+81-3-6274-1412 Fax:+81-3-6274-1547
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs mailing list
>> specs at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>