RE: [OpenID] [xri-comment] My Feedback for XRD Vrsion 1.0

[Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Kemp [mailto:john@jkemp.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:14 PM

> I believe that an XRD always has a subject. So far, I have seen no
> argument to the contrary, and the use-cases discussed all seem to have
> a subject, even when it is called host.

We agree on that. The question is only whether it is useful to define an element generic enough to support the wide range of potential subjects and still enable interoperability.
 
> I do see a pragmatic issue about how the subject of an XRD is
> represented in the XRD document itself.

What I am trying to convey is that from my perspective, the use case supported by the current <Subject> design is by far more likely than any other use case, and is the primary driver in developing XRD. I am reluctant to design an element without better requirements or use cases.

> I agree that this issue is tough to solve, but I think providing
> common subject-related semantics at the XRD level with a measure of
> extensibility in the right direction is simply good design.

I think that's what we have done. We just don't agree on how this extensibility should be provided.
 
> I don't have any particular investment in XRD at all, so you are
> certainly free to evaluate (hopefully without further unwarranted
> ridicule) my arguments and decide not to pursue any changes.

If anything I wrote came off as ridiculing your views please accept my apology. I have meant no disrespect. My request for use cases wasn't made as criticism, but an actual request for use cases.
 
> - johnk