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

Re: telconf 07-11-2012 : what is webid

From: Andrei SAMBRA <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:14:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFG79ej087XoyXHopHgWPOYpkvrHK5AwY1cZRrkbvBxL5LsN9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

>  On 11/15/12 11:40 AM, Andrei SAMBRA wrote:
>
>
>>  Restricting ourselves to http, https URLs does make for a clearer spec,
>> without
>> creating interoperability issues. I can see that ftp and ftps would also
>> work, but
>> we would certainly have a more testable system if we limited ourselves at
>> first.
>>
> +1
> We should remember that WebID is a _W3C_ group, not an IETF one.
>
> So you infer that URIs belong to IETF and URLs to the W3C? At the same
> time you assume this is architecture with real interoperability in mind.
>
> You are making an important point here, quite profound. I really need to
> know if this is the view shared by others.
>
> The most powerful virtue of the Web is its interoperability. That virtue
> is inextricably linked to URI abstraction.
>

No, my point is that WebID URIs use HTTP(S) schemes. The point is to avoid
ftp:// WebIDs (or any other scheme) in order to simplify the spec.

Andrei

> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 17:15:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 November 2012 17:15:46 GMT