Proposal for discovery of an OpenID session at an OP

[Chris Obdam]

Peter,

I like the middle state idea. But i'm  not that fond of the x-header part in your posting, I think that introducing another popup: "Somebody want to detect your login state, allow or cancel?" is a bad thing for the UX.
Don't know how to address the privacy issue in another way (then dismissing it as a problem.. ;-))

Cheers,

Chris Obdam
Stichting OpenID NL (Dutch OpenID foundation)

Op 22 jan 2010, om 05:31 heeft Peter Watkins het volgende geschreven:

> All,
> 
> I would appreciate any suggestions on how to put forth suggestions for serious consideration, as my last attempt was such a failure.
> 
> Was my December proposal** really so bad (or badly written?) as to merit no on-list responses whatsoever? One of you was kind enough to send a note off-list (thanks!), but I am disappointed in the complete lack of responses -- after all, I thought I was outlining a path toward solving some problems & concerns raised by a wide variety of folks on this list, including Luke Shepard at Facebook, Drummond Reed, Dick Hardt, and others.
> 
> What does it take for an idea to get some attention around here??
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Peter
> 
> **http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/2009-December/006358.html
> 
> Peter Watkins wrote:
>> Regarding Chris Obdam's request in
>> http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/2009-December/006276.html
> 
>> I would like to offer first the observation that this sounds just like Luke Shepard's checkid_immediate "middle state" proposal, on which a
>> number of OpenID folk have already commented: http://www.sociallipstick.com/2009/04/15/lets-detect-logged-in-state/
>> And I would like to offer this proposal for implementing what Luke and
>> Chris want while providing simple mechanisms to address privacy concerns.
> 
> ...snip...
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs