+1, I am in complete agreement with your observation. On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]>wrote:
> Users may not know what they want. > > But they sure have told us that they absolutely do not want URIs as > user identifiers. They do not want that any more than they want fire > that can be fitted nasally. > > They have also demonstrated a complete lack of interest in XRIs as > identifiers. > > > I am certainly not arguing against these positions as "nobody has ever > tried it, so don't even bother offering". I am arguing against them on > the basis that they were tried against my advice, that the results of > that trial were complete failure in precisely the way that I predicted > and that we should on absolutely no account attempt this experiment > yet again and waste yet more time and the patience of adopters. > > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:35 PM, SitG Admin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I need to borrow your hat for a minute, Peter :) > > > > At 4:00 PM -0400 5/13/10, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> > >> For thirty years Internet users have understood their user identifier > >> to be usern...@domain. > >> > >> I see absolutely zero interest from end users in being identified in > >> any other way. The attempts to provide them with this 'flexibility; > >> are unwanted and unnecessary. > > > > Have you studied marketing much? The ideal of "ask users what they want > and > > give it to them" hasn't worked out perfectly, because it turns out users > > don't always *know* what they want - especially when they aren't familiar > > with it yet (think the Aero Chair). > > > > To address your assertion directly, though: you're presenting one side of > an > > idealogical argument, from the "status quo" - *of course* such > flexibility > > isn't necessary, because the only thing it offers over the necessity of > > maintaining that status quo is change, which would be disruptive. The > flip > > side of this argument is that, if OpenID is to idealogically represent > the > > user as the centre of their own identity ("user-centric") rather than as > a > > wholly owned subsidiary of their patron website ("@domain", naturally > > requiring DNS), then it has the right to help users better understand > their > > rights and options. > > > > As an idealogical argument, it works; where it falls flat is in the > > technological arena (ideals against practical reality? really?), and I > wish > > you'd present more of those (backward compatibility was an *excellent* > > point) instead of relying so much on the *implicit* perfection of a > > long-entrenched model. > > > > I repeat: you made a *compelling* technical argument. It's just that > "nobody > > has ever tried it, so don't even bother offering" detracts from what > you're > > saying. > > > > I will make one observation - those earlier criticisms of OpenID that > it's > > no better than the many past (failed) attempts? If we strive to provide > > nothing more than those other tries did, OpenID really *will* be no > > different from them. > > > >> The only new mechanism is part 3 > > > > What version of the charter's draft are you looking at? I don't see: > > > >> 2) The resolution protocol for the domain part of the user identifier > >> is totally independent of any application protocol, including HTTP, it > >> uses DNS and only DNS to resolve the DNS name. > > > > I don't see this mentioned *anywhere*. Has there been an update? > > > > -Shade takes off Peter's hat and hands it back > > _______________________________________________ > > specs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs > > > > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs > -- http://hi.im/santosh
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
