Re: OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the extension's type URI

> +1 I think that advertising the extension itself is a good practice.
>
> A RP may prefer OPs that support the extension over ones that don't.
>
> That is the case for PAPE now as an example.
>
> With XRD most of that will be described in the OPs XRD rather than  
> the users, but the same principal should apply.
>
> John B.
> On 22-Jul-09, at 12:00 PM, specs-request@... wrote:
>
>> From: Breno de Medeiros <breno@...>
>> Subject: Re: OPs to advertise support for OpenID extensions via the
>> extension's type URI
>> To: Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott@...>
>> Cc: specs@...
>> Message-ID:
>> <29fb00360907221019t10a0393aydbae458ba8c662ba@...>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary=00151750e13a821afc046f4e91df
>>
>> --00151750e13a821afc046f4e91df
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> I agree with Andrew on this suggestion. I don't think the UI WG  
>> proceeded
>> differently for any particular reason, except that no such convention
>> existed and we were not aware of side-effects previously.  
>> Regardless of
>> interoperability issues with existing libraries, I thinking having  
>> a type
>> URI for the extension is desirable from purely semantic standpoint  
>> (if a
>> human were to read such document, it would be more logically  
>> organized with
>> 'umbrella' type URIs for the extension).
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs@...
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs