[+www-talk again] On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 01/12/2008, at 1:05 PM, Dirk Balfanz wrote: > > I'm not quite following. How does this proposal stomp on people's >> namespace? If they want to serve different documents on the two domains (and >> can figure out how to do so), they can. >> >> Yes, but doing it by default is forcing them to work around a special > case. If www.example.com and example.com are really equivalent, the site > administrator is already making that work (through a variety of means); why > do they need this? > > Also, the question isn't really whether _we_ think it's easy or not to >> point one to the other, but whether we think that a large number of >> registrars make it unintuitive for a large number of amateurs to do so. >> >> Explain the use case; what can't they do? Well, here is the scenario: I buy foobar.com for $3/year at cheapdomains.com. I pay an extra dollar to have "email", which means I tell them where I want my email forwarded. I pick [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I pay another extra dollar per year for "web hosting", which means I get a web interface on cheapdomains.com to create some web pages, which get served on www.foobar.com. I set up a couple of pages there with pictures of my cats or whatever and I am done. I now also want to use my email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] as my OpenID identifier [1] because I heard that that will end my having to create ever-more accounts on the web. I am told that in order to get that to work I need to host a page called "site-meta" on my site with some weird-looking text in it that I don't understand. But, hey, I know how to get that served off www.foobar.com so that's cool. I have never heard of DNS. Is that a use case we want to support? Dirk. [1] Let's assume that OpenID 3.0 and XRD 2.0 allow that and define some way to discover OpenID endpoints from email addresses. > > > Dirk. >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2008 6:56 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Absolutely not. the spec is already stomping on an authority's control >> over its namespace quite enough, and it's easy for people to work around >> this if their intent is for the two to be the same. >> On 30/11/2008, at 8:55 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > (sorry for potential >> duplicates, I'm havin... >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > >