W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > November 2012

Re: WebID, WebID Protocol definitions and requirements.

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 00:25:54 +0000
Message-ID: <5091C192.9050604@webr3.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-rww@w3.org, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 10/31/12 1:05 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 10/31/12 12:39 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>>> For reference, would you be 0/1 with:
>>>>
>>>> a) definition WebID: an HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. Where you 
>>>> can GET an RDF model as TURTLE.
>>>
>>> 0.
>>>
>>>> b) subjectAltName ... MUST be an HTTP URI ...
>>>
>>> 0.
>>
>> any input from the other 16 people who +1'd the definition using "a 
>> hash HTTP URI"?
>>
>> My position can be summarised as http-uri where you can GET turtle, 
>> preference to hash URIs.
>>
>> This says nothing as to whether I like the constraints, but I do think 
>> they're needed to prevent webid protocol verification agents needing 
>> to support a plethora of standards and non standards, on both the 
>> protocol and mediatype sides.
> 
> A WebID protocol verifier should simply de-refrerence URIs in the SAN 
> slot of an X.509 certificate.
> 
> When creating profile documents, end-users and developers SHOULD be 
> encouraged to do so using hash URIs to denote Agents.

? confused now, why -1 from you when I suggested "subjectAltName ... 
MUST be an HTTP URI and SHOULD contain a #fragment ..." ?

cheers, nathan
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:27:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:27:06 GMT