Even developers who have taken the time to handle captchas tend to do
so by opening up a web browser rather than displaying the captcha
themselves.
We clearly need rate limiting on this kind of API, and we do need a
way for users to recover when their accounts are rate limited
accidentally. But full-on captcha support seems unlikely.
I think we should just return some error text with a URL to the client
instead. Developers can ask the user to visit that URL.
Note that this also lets us add audio captchas/cookie reputation
checks/etc... pretty easily.
Cheers,
Brian
It was actually Allen's idea to use captcha rate limiting. On our call, we concluded that including the captcha rate limit as an option made sense. Thanks for the data point that not many developers support the captcha interface you expose.
We also were going to make it optional to include a URL in the results that the app could send the user. This is clearly easier for apps that can launch a browser. Those apps though are likely better served by the Rich App profile rather than the Username and Password profile.
Making it optional enables a consistent means of doing captcha, and then implementers can decide if that works for their situation.
In other words, I think it is best to define a number of standard mechanisms for resolving the problem so that whichever one(s) become popular, there is a defined way to do it instead of a million slightly different snowflakes. Does that work?
-- Dick
Sorry if I was not clear. I plan on including a number of mechanisms, including the captcha one.
-Dick