<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
+1<br>
<br>
Allen<br>
<br>
<br>
Breno de Medeiros wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:29fb00360907221019t10a0393aydbae458ba8c662ba@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">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).<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Andrew
Arnott <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:andrewarnott@gmail.com">andrewarnott@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi
folks,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Breno just pointed out to me that the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openid.net/f/openid_ui_extension_draft01.html#anchor6"
target="_blank">UI extension's draft spec, Discovery section</a> 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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<i>someext</i> 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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So I'm requesting two things:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Can we get the UI extension DRAFT spec updated to include
that the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://specs.openid.net/extensions/ui/1.0" target="_blank">http://specs.openid.net/extensions/ui/1.0</a>
URI be included in the XRDS document?</li>
<li>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)</li>
</ol>
<div>What do you all think?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
--<br>
Andrew Arnott<br>
"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<br>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
specs mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
--Breno<br>
<br>
+1 (650) 214-1007 desk<br>
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)<br>
MTV-41-3 : 383-A <br>
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)<br>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>