For sure. This is a slight change, but a big change for the better. Nobody wants to remember a URL when they already remember their email. This makes perfect sense, and solves the biggest issue with OpenID in a way that looks like it puts it on par with the ease of use for end users of Facebook Connect, for example.
If every service simply required an email address, and the standard provided for a way to find out the access point from the OpenID provider, then we'd be all set and everyone would be able to implement this change.
Contact information should not be an identifier. It's like when a B&M store uses your phone number to ID you. I don't want them calling me and I don't want your website to email me.
The URL is simply a pointer to my identity, which is all I should have to give. The different formats the providers use is what makes it confusing (example.com, username.example.com, example.com/username, and now username@example.com)
If Google had stuck with the standard OpenID implementation, they could've still had the same user experience. http://zain@gmail.com/ is a valid URL, and Google could've used that as the OpenID URL.
how hard would it be to slap "http://" onto the email if it wasnt there? that way you get your email and you dont break the standard. not hard, not hard at all.
Most/all OpenID libraries already seem to handle identifiers without the http://
If the libraries don't already support the "@" syntax, they should.
If Google's way of doing things requires any proprietary changes, I'd say it's unacceptable, but if that's the only change necessary then it seems like a reasonable way of doing things.
I don't think this blogger actually read the post by Google. The neosmart article emphasizes This is a departure from the process outlined in OpenID 1.0. This is because Google is following the OpenID 2.0 protocol which does contain the discovery request and the XRDS document process.
According to The Next Web (see this post: http://cli.gs/MM0aab ), "Dick Hardt, an important OpenID supporter, also confirms that Google is NOT compatible with OpenID". They link to his comment on TC.
The implication of division is also a really false one. Last week we had a summit about OpenID usability and Google as well as all the other major players in this space were there. People really want to find a good solution for users. This is not about division at all. People really want to find the same good solution for users to use everywhere.
I find the implication that tech companies are constantly at each other's throats and back stabbing each other like a bunch of Hollywood hussies tiresome. Google have talked about "federated login" for a while and this is them taking it out into the wild.
The exact implementation of Open ID that ends up being used by everyone is going to change over time as we learn what works for users and what doesn't.
I'd also like to see a credit card (or even PayPal account) attached to an OpenID account so one can also use it to pay for things online with an email address. An email confirmation would occur after each purchase. Thus OpenID becomes a substitute for a CC's number and its other details, which are lodged with the OpenID provider. At present, one can't even sign for an online purchase or show a confirming ID or enter a PIN.
