<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Ben Laurie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:benl@google.com">benl@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On 23 March 2010 23:20, John Panzer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jpanzer@google.com" target="_blank">jpanzer@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
A fundamental premise of Webfinger is that there are a lot of users -- today, probably the majority of the Internet -- who are comfortable with and know their email address (or email like identifier, like a Jabber ID), who have no interest in acquiring an HTTP identifier as well, and in fact an extra HTTP identifier is a hindrance to them using the technology. So, the desire to avoid the HTTP identifier in a user visible context derives from that premise. And a login ID is definitely user visible; it's how you show a user who they're currently logged in as, for example.</blockquote>
<div><br></div></div><div>Exactly, so why not say that the login ID is the "real" ID and be done with it?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>HEHEHE I LOVE THIS</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div>
</div>-- <br><a href="http://hi.im/santosh">http://hi.im/santosh</a><br><br><br>