[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Auth]simplest logon design proposal

From: Albert Scherbinsky
Subject: Re: [Auth]simplest logon design proposal
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:34:20 -0400

Generally it looks pretty good, but here are my comments:

1) You expressed the concern:
> <embed src="/login.gnu" width="1" height="1" />
>The trick of using <embed> may be wrong. On any given browser, I'm not sure 
>... whether >making it one pixel wide and high will really hide it effectively 
>on non-dotGNU >browsers.

Using: <embed hidden="true" autostart="true"
src="/login.gnu" />
fixes this problem.

2) You give an example of how the canonical data can be
mapped to the specific form:

>Obviously, this kind of information could be
>packaged in XML in a number of ways. Here is one possible example: 
> <?xml version="1.0" ?>
> <dotGNU>
>    <method>POST</method>
>    <url></url>
>    <AccountName>name</AccountName>
>    <Password>secret</Password>
> </dotGNU>

I realize that this is just an example, but I think it is
worth stating now that this example expresses an overly
simplistic view of what is needed. As an example, some forms
have a separate field for apartment number, and others
require the apartment number to be placed in one of the
Address lines. This points to the need for the ability to
specify the composition of canonical fields into form
fields, which straight forward extension of the given
example cannot address.

Here is an example which addresses this specific concern:

<?xml version="1.0" ?>
    <FIELD name="name"><AccountName/></FIELD>
    <FIELD name="secret"><Password/></FIELD>
    <FIELD name="address1"><StreetNumber/> <StreetName/>

Note: (name, secret, address1) are form fields and
are the canonical dotGNU fields.

3) 'dotGNU' represents a broader collection of things than
just a standard for filling forms. So, it might be better to
use somethings else for the root tag on the XML. I recommend
<SIML> for (Simple Interface Markup Language).


Ron Burk wrote:
> I've tried to write something up at:
> The goal is to see whether there's agreement on
> the overall concept, and then to work towards
> something to present to vendors of existing
> client-side software to try to get them involved
> before getting started on ironing out all the details.
> (details may not matter if they're not interested :-).
> Please post feedback here.  Thanks!
> Ron Burk
> _______________________________________________
> Auth mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]