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

Re: hash/303, all use cases, requirements, thoughts, notes, approaches, use cases, user stories..

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:44:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnFkD4Z7FXQMtFNJjC5Ew1bGiHZCd9pDWZ+06k7=QdwgPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote:

>
> On 21 Nov 2012, at 18:25, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>
> > Henry Story wrote:
> >> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash
> >
> > I'm unsure that anything could be captured here which hasn't already
> been captured by the exhaustive work of Jonathan Rees and others via
> www-tag and the awwsw tf, see:
> >
> >  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
>
>
> We can define WebIDs to be whatever we want I think.


We can. The question is whether we should!

option 1: define it the way we want (e.g. hash URIs only), and disregard
any on-going work by the TAG, which might resolve the issue with a solution
incompatible with the one we define today.

option 2: leave it open and generic in our definition of WebID, but
strongly encourage the use of hash URI via examples.

Steph.
PS: casted my vote + arguments at
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash and I
encourage others to do the same.


> We had Tim Berners Lee argue
> strongly in favor of hash urls. So I think it cannot be that this is as
> clear
> as you think.
>
> Please add your point to the wiki hash page.
>
> Henry
>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>


-- 
Steph.
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 17:44:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 November 2012 17:44:51 GMT