Re: [xri] XRD trusted discovery workflow

[Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@google.com>]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:35 AM, David Fuelling <david.fuelling@cordance.net> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@google.com> wrote:

I do think that something like

<Service>
  <Type>uri-to-uri-map</Type>
  <URIMap>...</URIMap>
</Service>

doesn't make much sense b/c both the <Type> element _and_ the <URIMap> element say that this is a URI map. We don't need to say it twice.

I disagree.  The <Type> describes the service (It's a way to map URI's, e.g.).  The URIMap is the way you go about mapping the URI.

If you omit the <Type>, then how does an XRD consumer know that the URIMap is supposed to be used to map URI's to URL, instead of doing something with some other Service-Type, like OpenID.

As an example, these two Services are very different, despite having the same URIMap.

<Service>
  <Type>http://xrd.something/GenericURIMap</Type>
  <URIMap>http://example.com?uri={uri}</URIMap>
</Service>

and

<Service>
  <Type>http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0</Type>
  <URIMap>http://example.com?uri={uri}</URIMap>
</Service>

Yes, if we all agree that we need the latter then you're right. I was arguing that we might not need the latter, only the former (i.e. only generic maps), in which case we don't need to say twice that this is a generic map.

Brian and I have been filling napkins with use cases all day to try to figure this out (i.e. whether we need only generic maps - he's been trying to convince me that we need the service-type-specific maps).

Once I understand the issue better, I'll respond in the new thread that Drummond started about this.

Dirk.