[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Moving from "xri://" to "xri:"
Right you can recommend. However,
the point is that if we, the ibrokers, the grs, and registrants (xrd authors),
start using xri: than our stuff will not work with the existing openid
libraries. I am not saying whether or not we should make this spec
change. I am just reinforcing Gabe’s point about existing libraries
in which we have no control over. Until, those libraries change it
would be dangerous for anybody’s XRD to change from xri:// to xri:. From: Drummond Reed
[mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] Les, thanks, this is helpful. It
reinforces my suggestion that we RECOMMEND that for backwards compatability,
developers support both “xri:” and “xri://”. That way
the transition to 2.1 syntax could happen gradually over time with few if any
glitches. =Drummond From: Chasen, Les
[mailto: I did a quick scan of the GRS. More
than 50% of service types include xri://. The ones that don’t are
either null, http://openid.net/signon/1.0,
or a handful of test types. The handful of test types are mostly mine J The other big change is providerId.
Every single global resolution requests includes xri://= or xri://@. This
is easy for the GRS to change but the concern would be libraries being
written. I believe openid4java would break if the GRS used xri: instead
of xri://. I am not sure about other ones. From: Drummond Reed
[mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] Gabe, I thought about this over the weekend, and
I realized that regardless of what we decided, we should recommend that coders
maintain backwards-compatability with XRI 2.0 syntax by accepting XRIs that
include BOTH “xri:” and “xri://”. In fact I think
that’s a recommended practice going forward because regardless of what
the spec says, some users may type “xri:” before their XRI
(thinking that’s the right thing to do) and some may type
“xri://” (thinking that’s the right thing to do) and most
will just start at the GCS character (which is the easiest thing to do) and
none of them should have the wrong thing happen. However since I believe it is important
that XRI architecture maintain the proper ABNF foundation, I think that
formally the best thing is to simplify to “xri:” in XRI 2.1. So my vote is +1. =Drummond From: Gabe Wachob
[mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net] I wish we had done this a long time ago,
to be honest. HOWEVER, we didn’t, and now we have
the entire OpenID world using XML documents with the namespace
“xri://…” So we’d be asking the entire world
(whoever that is) to change their XRDs and their implementations to recognize
and produce XML documents in a new namespace. That worries me, especially given
the sentiments some already have toward XRI in OpenID. So all things being equal, my vote is
actually, because it really hasn’t been that big a problem for the last n
years, so I’m not sure we should pay the price now to “fix”
it. If someone were to convince me the price of the change were actually not
that big a deal (ie someone from the OpenID world said “hey, no problem,
change the XRDs, not a problem”), then I could be persuaded to change to
a +1: -1 is my vote.
-Gabe From: Barnhill,
William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com] +1
as well from me. From: Victor
Grey [mailto: +1 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]