Calling for Rejecting webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd

[Santosh Rajan]

I am calling for the rejection of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last few threads on this forum and you will know why.

Here I want to start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a "Resource".

"A URI-addressable network document or service".

So If you want to buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.

So I would like to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.

This is not to suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0 based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this forum in the last week or so.

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[John Panzer-3]

Santosh,

To tell you the truth, I did not understand your prior objections (and the discussion has morphed a lot so it's difficult to understand the current state of your objections).  I also don't understand your assertion below "if you want to buy..." and how it connects to your prior objections.  Note that I'm not asserting that your objections are wrong, just that I don't understand them.  I suspect there are lot of people in the same boat as I am.

John

Santosh Rajan wrote:

I am calling for the rejection of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last few threads on this forum and you will know why.

Here I want to start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a "Resource".

"A URI-addressable network document or service".

So If you want to buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.

So I would like to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.

This is not to suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0 based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this forum in the last week or so.

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
  

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Santosh Rajan]

John,

If you want we can leave out my reference to the other threads. In this thread I am only posing one question which I think should be clear to everyone.

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:02 PM, John Panzer <jpanzer@...> wrote:

Santosh,

To tell you the truth, I did not understand your prior objections (and the discussion has morphed a lot so it's difficult to understand the current state of your objections).  I also don't understand your assertion below "if you want to buy..." and how it connects to your prior objections.  Note that I'm not asserting that your objections are wrong, just that I don't understand them.  I suspect there are lot of people in the same boat as I am.

John

Santosh Rajan wrote:

I am calling for the rejection of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last few threads on this forum and you will know why.

Here I want to start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a "Resource".

"A URI-addressable network document or service".

So If you want to buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.

So I would like to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.

This is not to suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0 based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this forum in the last week or so.

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
  

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[John Panzer-3]

Okay -- just assume I'm stupid about this:  What's the question?

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:

John,

If you want we can leave out my reference to the other threads. In this thread I am only posing one question which I think should be clear to everyone.

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:02 PM, John Panzer <jpanzer@...> wrote:

Santosh,

To tell you the truth, I did not understand your prior objections (and the discussion has morphed a lot so it's difficult to understand the current state of your objections).  I also don't understand your assertion below "if you want to buy..." and how it connects to your prior objections.  Note that I'm not asserting that your objections are wrong, just that I don't understand them.  I suspect there are lot of people in the same boat as I am.

John

Santosh Rajan wrote:

I am calling for the rejection of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last few threads on this forum and you will know why.

Here I want to start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a "Resource".

"A URI-addressable network document or service".

So If you want to buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.

So I would like to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.

This is not to suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0 based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this forum in the last week or so.

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
  

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Dirk Balfanz]

On Sunday, November 1, 2009, John Panzer <jpanzer@...> wrote:
> Okay -- just assume I'm stupid about this:  What's the question?
>


+1

I also got lost in the variuos threads. Can you state concisely your
objection? It's not clear from your first message.

Dirk

> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:
> John,If you want we can leave out my reference to the other threads. In this thread I am only posing one question which I think should be clear to everyone.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:02 PM, John Panzer <jpanzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Santosh,
>
> To tell you the truth, I did not understand your prior objections (and
> the discussion has morphed a lot so it's difficult to understand the
> current state of your objections).  I also don't understand your
> assertion below "if you want to buy..." and how it connects to your
> prior objections.  Note that I'm not asserting that your objections are
> wrong, just that I don't understand them.  I suspect there are lot of
> people in the same boat as I am.
>
> John
>
> Santosh Rajan wrote:
> I am calling for the rejection of webfinger,
> host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons
> for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will
> understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last
> few threads on this forum and you will know why.
>
>
>   Here I want to
> start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a
> "Resource".
>
>
>   "A
> URI-addressable network document or service".
>
>
>   So If you want to
> buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd
> folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they
> want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.
>
>
>   So I would like
> to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.
>
>
>   This is not to
> suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I
> do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0
> based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this
> forum in the last week or so.
>
>
>   --
>   http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@...
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Santosh Rajan]

Ah, I agree, semantic problem here. It wasn't a question, it was a point I was making which I will rephrase here.

If you wan't to Reject the <Subject> of an XRD (includes host-meta), you need to prove that the XRD is "NOT a URI Addressable document". 

Simply making a statement to that effect is not enough. 

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@...> wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2009, John Panzer <jpanzer@...> wrote:
> Okay -- just assume I'm stupid about this:  What's the question?
>

+1

I also got lost in the variuos threads. Can you state concisely your
objection? It's not clear from your first message.

Dirk

> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:
> John,If you want we can leave out my reference to the other threads. In this thread I am only posing one question which I think should be clear to everyone.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:02 PM, John Panzer <jpanzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Santosh,
>
> To tell you the truth, I did not understand your prior objections (and
> the discussion has morphed a lot so it's difficult to understand the
> current state of your objections).  I also don't understand your
> assertion below "if you want to buy..." and how it connects to your
> prior objections.  Note that I'm not asserting that your objections are
> wrong, just that I don't understand them.  I suspect there are lot of
> people in the same boat as I am.
>
> John
>
> Santosh Rajan wrote:
> I am calling for the rejection of webfinger,
> host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons
> for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will
> understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last
> few threads on this forum and you will know why.
>
>
>   Here I want to
> start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a
> "Resource".
>
>
>   "A
> URI-addressable network document or service".
>
>
>   So If you want to
> buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd
> folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they
> want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.
>
>
>   So I would like
> to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.
>
>
>   This is not to
> suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I
> do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0
> based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this
> forum in the last week or so.
>
>
>   --
>   http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@...
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>
>
>

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Dirk Balfanz]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:

Ah, I agree, semantic problem here. It wasn't a question, it was a point I was making which I will rephrase here.

If you wan't to Reject the <Subject> of an XRD (includes host-meta), you need to prove that the XRD is "NOT a URI Addressable document". 

Still not quite sure what you mean. Are you talking about rejecting a <Subject> during resource resolution? Or are you talking about the fact that a <Subject> is optional in an XRD? Or are you talking about the fact that an XRD must be about a URI-addressable resource? 

If it's the latter, I trust this helped: http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/2009-November/019500.html

 

Dirk.

Simply making a statement to that effect is not enough. 

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@...> wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2009, John Panzer <jpanzer@...> wrote:
> Okay -- just assume I'm stupid about this:  What's the question?
>

+1

I also got lost in the variuos threads. Can you state concisely your
objection? It's not clear from your first message.

Dirk

> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:
> John,If you want we can leave out my reference to the other threads. In this thread I am only posing one question which I think should be clear to everyone.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:02 PM, John Panzer <jpanzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Santosh,
>
> To tell you the truth, I did not understand your prior objections (and
> the discussion has morphed a lot so it's difficult to understand the
> current state of your objections).  I also don't understand your
> assertion below "if you want to buy..." and how it connects to your
> prior objections.  Note that I'm not asserting that your objections are
> wrong, just that I don't understand them.  I suspect there are lot of
> people in the same boat as I am.
>
> John
>
> Santosh Rajan wrote:
> I am calling for the rejection of webfinger,
> host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons
> for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will
> understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last
> few threads on this forum and you will know why.
>
>
>   Here I want to
> start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a
> "Resource".
>
>
>   "A
> URI-addressable network document or service".
>
>
>   So If you want to
> buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd
> folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they
> want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.
>
>
>   So I would like
> to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.
>
>
>   This is not to
> suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I
> do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0
> based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this
> forum in the last week or so.
>
>
>   --
>   http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@...
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>
>
>

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Santosh Rajan]

I don't know why you have dug up an old thread now. We have come a long way in nine days.

And I hope this helps.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200911/msg00014.html

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@...> wrote:

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:

Ah, I agree, semantic problem here. It wasn't a question, it was a point I was making which I will rephrase here.

If you wan't to Reject the <Subject> of an XRD (includes host-meta), you need to prove that the XRD is "NOT a URI Addressable document". 

Still not quite sure what you mean. Are you talking about rejecting a <Subject> during resource resolution? Or are you talking about the fact that a <Subject> is optional in an XRD? Or are you talking about the fact that an XRD must be about a URI-addressable resource? 

If it's the latter, I trust this helped: http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/2009-November/019500.html

 

Dirk.

Simply making a statement to that effect is not enough. 

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@...> wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2009, John Panzer <jpanzer@...> wrote:
> Okay -- just assume I'm stupid about this:  What's the question?
>

+1

I also got lost in the variuos threads. Can you state concisely your
objection? It's not clear from your first message.

Dirk

> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:
> John,If you want we can leave out my reference to the other threads. In this thread I am only posing one question which I think should be clear to everyone.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:02 PM, John Panzer <jpanzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Santosh,
>
> To tell you the truth, I did not understand your prior objections (and
> the discussion has morphed a lot so it's difficult to understand the
> current state of your objections).  I also don't understand your
> assertion below "if you want to buy..." and how it connects to your
> prior objections.  Note that I'm not asserting that your objections are
> wrong, just that I don't understand them.  I suspect there are lot of
> people in the same boat as I am.
>
> John
>
> Santosh Rajan wrote:
> I am calling for the rejection of webfinger,
> host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons
> for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will
> understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last
> few threads on this forum and you will know why.
>
>
>   Here I want to
> start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a
> "Resource".
>
>
>   "A
> URI-addressable network document or service".
>
>
>   So If you want to
> buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd
> folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they
> want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.
>
>
>   So I would like
> to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.
>
>
>   This is not to
> suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I
> do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0
> based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this
> forum in the last week or so.
>
>
>   --
>   http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@...
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>
>
>

--
http://hi.im/santosh

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Peter Williams]

You didn't offer a basis for the rejection call. Here are some examples.

The openid movement has no formal wg studying the applicability of xrd or lrdd as a yadis replacement. The technical and political work is open but is not open to everyone in practice. It an expert group model, not a community model.

It's derived from xri, which was a miserable failure in the web. Folks drawing from xri and xrd engineering axioms (vs w3c axioms) cannot be trusted twice.

Xrd in XML achieves little that could not be acheived  with an rdf file or even a HTML file

if I'm going to buy into powder, do I also want to bother with xrd?

It's all tied to this vendor push to sell cloud offloading, and is too closely tied to marchiteture.

It's all tied to the adoption of uci, which gartner counsels clients to avoid for 5+ years (don't bother today to become an rp , except to experiment)

Santosh Rajan wrote:

I don't know why you have dug up an old thread now. We have come a long way
in nine days.
And I hope this helps.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200911/msg00014.html
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200911/msg00014.html>

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Dirk Balfanz <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Santosh Rajan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Ah, I agree, semantic problem here. It wasn't a question, it was a point I
>> was making which I will rephrase here.
>>
>> If you wan't to Reject the <Subject> of an XRD (includes host-meta), you
>> need to prove that the XRD is "NOT a URI Addressable document".
>>
>
> Still not quite sure what you mean. Are you talking about rejecting a
> <Subject> during resource resolution? Or are you talking about the fact that
> a <Subject> is optional in an XRD? Or are you talking about the fact that an
> XRD must be about a URI-addressable resource?
>
> If it's the latter, I trust this helped:
> http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/2009-November/019500.html
>
> Dirk.
>
>
>> Simply making a statement to that effect is not enough.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Dirk Balfanz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, November 1, 2009, John Panzer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> > Okay -- just assume I'm stupid about this:  What's the question?
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I also got lost in the variuos threads. Can you state concisely your
>>> objection? It's not clear from your first message.
>>>
>>> Dirk
>>>
>>> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Santosh Rajan <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > John,If you want we can leave out my reference to the other threads. In
>>> this thread I am only posing one question which I think should be clear to
>>> everyone.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:02 PM, John Panzer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Santosh,
>>> >
>>> > To tell you the truth, I did not understand your prior objections (and
>>> > the discussion has morphed a lot so it's difficult to understand the
>>> > current state of your objections).  I also don't understand your
>>> > assertion below "if you want to buy..." and how it connects to your
>>> > prior objections.  Note that I'm not asserting that your objections are
>>> > wrong, just that I don't understand them.  I suspect there are lot of
>>> > people in the same boat as I am.
>>> >
>>> > John
>>> >
>>> > Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>> > I am calling for the rejection of webfinger,
>>> > host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons
>>> > for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will
>>> > understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last
>>> > few threads on this forum and you will know why.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >   Here I want to
>>> > start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a
>>> > "Resource".
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >   "A
>>> > URI-addressable network document or service".
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >   So If you want to
>>> > buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd
>>> > folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they
>>> > want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >   So I would like
>>> > to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >   This is not to
>>> > suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I
>>> > do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0
>>> > based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this
>>> > forum in the last week or so.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >   --
>>> >   http://hi.im/santosh
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > general mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > http://hi.im/santosh
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>
>>
>>
>


--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[e-mail]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general


-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com 

[Santosh Rajan]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Peter Williams <home_pw@...> wrote:

Xrd in XML achieves little that could not be acheived  with an rdf file or
even a HTML file

Yes I agree with you. I am also beginning to come to the same conclusion.

In fact I read somewhere that they are going to change the Link child elements into attributes. Which is just like Atom. You will see that  XRD can be written as an extension of Atom. 

--
http://hi.im/santosh



_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Peter Williams]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Working with a formal extension model for the atom vocabulary, why not write a blog post showing an atom formatted file that accomplishes the same goals as the host-meta example in the IETF I-D?

 

Why not sign it, in a manner that confirms to the model of signing used in the resource feed community? Two models of signing seem popular these days: certified signing (like ssl client auth messages, citing certs), and signed by hmac (like ws-trust, citing derived keys).

 

From: Santosh Rajan [mailto:santrajan@...]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:22 PM
To: Peter Williams
Cc: general@...
Subject: Re: [OpenID] Calling for Rejecting webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd

 

 

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Peter Williams <home_pw@...> wrote:

 

Xrd in XML achieves little that could not be acheived  with an rdf file or
even a HTML file

 

Yes I agree with you. I am also beginning to come to the same conclusion.

In fact I read somewhere that they are going to change the Link child elements into attributes. Which is just like Atom. You will see that  XRD can be written as an extension of Atom. 

 

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general