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

Re: WebID, WebID Protocol definitions and requirements.

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:24:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnF43oLM2_aW3xnFGucUM+CfLk=VTL72VTrO7+Tcfc=B5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> All,
>
> I'd propose the following
>
> Definitions:
>
> WebID
> An HTTP URI with a #fragment which denotes an agent, when dereferenced a
> description of the denoted agent is provided in Turtle.
>
> Authenticated-WebID
> A WebID which has been authenticated using WebID-Protocol
>
>
> WebID Protocol Requirements:
>
> subjectAltName ... MUST be an HTTP URI and SHOULD contain a #fragment ...
>

Adding a constraint on #fragment here doesn't make sense to me, people and
implementers are free to mint their WebID the way they want, let them use
303 redirect if they like it. I know people who don't have a #fragment in
their WebID. This should be an implementation detail, not a requirement.

Steph.


>
> WebID profiles ... MUST be in Turtle, and MAY be made available in other
> machine readable formats such as ...
>
> WebID Verification Agents ... MUST support Turtle ... SHOULD support other
> machine readable formats.
>
> Kingsley: I believe this would encourage best practise and push people
> towards #frags and turtle for interoperability, but also allow your and
> everyone's tooling to be conforming even when supporting ProxyURIs and the
> like.
>
> Fair?
>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
>


-- 
Steph.
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 16:24:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 31 October 2012 16:24:43 GMT