On 12/28/06, David Recordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is a bit confusing to parse so we were looking at re-wording it. Issue
> is "Claimed Identifier" is defined as possibly being a "User-Supplied
> Identifier" which in turn can be an "OP Identifier" thus making this
> paragraph fall apart.
>From 7.3.1:
If the end user did not enter an OP Identifier, the following
information will also be present:
* Claimed Identifier
* OP-Local Identifier
The Claimed Identifier can not be an OP identifier. Therefore, I think
there is not a problem with the way that HTML discovery has been
specified. I don't have time to write up why right now, but I'm -1 on
adding a type field to HTML discovery.
Josh
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
