user@domain identity form musings
M. David Peterson
xmlhacker at gmail.com
Fri May 27 11:51:57 PDT 2005
Let me make sure I dont inject controversy into any of this though. What
OpenID is right now is FANTASTIC!!! So, if there seems to be too much
opposite thought on this matter I would certainly rather spend my time
building the code for the system that attracted me to this list in the first
place. Maybe when the code for several platforms is complete we can revisit
this and see how we might be able to make things better. But even still...
I'm here because of this > OpenID not this > OpenID.name<http://OpenID.name>.
I will gladly help in any way I can but at this stageof the game injecting
this into the mix could set things back and I certainly dont want to do
On 5/27/05, M. David Peterson <xmlhacker at gmail.com> wrote:
> By centralized namespace I assume you mean having a centralized system
> that each node relies upon to complete a transaction? This is not what I am
> suggesting at all. This is a backdoor, lets keep things solid and tight and
> allow easy access to each other without requiring anything. Think of it as
> more of a Subversion-styled system where everything is independent and yet
> with the proper credentials can be given access to the latest tagged bits or
> check code into a stream, etc...
> You can be independent without being severed completely from a system.
> Having backdoor access allows for exactly this.
> On 5/27/05, Evan Martin < evan.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/27/05, M. David Peterson < xmlhacker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Excellent arguments Martin. I concede. :)
> > >
> > > Do you see value in using the OpenID.name <http://OpenID.name>?
> > The whole point of OpenID as opposed to [insert system name here] is
> > that there isn't a centralized namespace.
> M. David Peterson <aka:xmlhacker/>
M. David Peterson <aka:xmlhacker/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the yadis