Re: [xri] <Link> Semantics

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

On 3/17/09 1:08 PM, "George Fletcher" <george.fletcher@corp.aol.com> wrote:

> But given that not every 2.0 provider is also a 1.1 provider, I can see
> the case where I might want to have both a 1.1 provider and a 2.0
> provider and they could be different. Albeit not very likely in the
> currently climate where most users will just use the OpenID provided by
> the major provider they already use.

But my approach doesn't stop you from listing two providers and putting them
in order of preference. One will support 2.0 and the other 1.1. The RP will
choose the best one for its needs. Why do *you* need to specify which one
supports which version? I think in the balance between your (the user) ease
of use and the RP's potential (if no caching) extra round trip, you should
win.

> However, based on your most resent response to Drummond, if we optimize
> the purist form for the pragmatic form, then extensions are defined by
> <Rel> elements which could be included in the <Link> element in the
> user's XRD. I agree that most users won't see or have control over this
> data as it will be provisioned by the OP in the user's XRD (in most cases).

The problem with this approach is that it treats any user not using the URI
provided by the IDP as its OpenID URI as second class citizens. Yes, it
removes one roundtrip, but at a price that a this point I doubt the OpenID
community is willing to pay.

Personally, I could not care less. If I used OpenID, it would be from a
large provider that will manage everything for me. But this is where we (the
XRI committee) cannot go any further as we are not in charge of prioritizing
the OpenID requirements...

My question is, did I answer in my last two posts about this the question on
how OpenID *can* use XRD for discovery?

EHL