This is an awesome initiative but I want to make sure that LTI integrations are properly captured and noted where possible.
The reason for this is that essentially services like Zoom aren’t actively supporting their integration with Open edX specifically as far as I’m aware, they’re just ensuring LTI works. Notionally, any service that supports LTI integration should work with Open edX in some way, but frequently it requires providers to do some weird work to actually make it work with the LTI consumer XBlock in Open edX.
The reason I’m being picky here is there’s a frankly insane amount of tools online that sport an LTI integration, to the point where there are many catalogs out there that barely scratch the surface, which could overwhelm any true integrations on the list (i.e. ones where the software is specifically integrated with Open edX, which tend to be much higher value). Similarly there are XBlocks that simplify the LTI consumer process for course staff, but are at their core “just” LTI integrations wrapped in a separate XBlock. Sneaky LTI XBlocks.
If something changes about the way a provider integrates with LTI, it can be problematic resolving that if other LMSes they care about more don’t have the same problem. Open edX is a bit of a snowflake when it comes to how LTI works on a per-course basis.
Ideally we could just say “It’s compatible as an LTI consumer, go nuts with thousands of LTI tools!” but that’s almost never the case.
TL;DR - I would strongly recommend splitting LTI integrations from native integrations and extensions in an extremely clear way, because despite using a standard they’re more inherently fragile due to the likely lack of specific commitment from the provider to support Open edX. They support the standard, not us.