- From: Clemens Portele via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:28:39 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
@marqh
Yes, there are nuances not expressed in the statement, this was just from my notes. Let me add the following:
* This was only in relation to URIs of published features/datasets, not URIs in general and not about vocabularies.
* This was about new identifiers. I wouldn't expect any impact on existing identifiers.
* It is meant as a recommendation, not a requirement.
* In my view, http://{feature} and https://{feature} should identify the same feature and resolve to the same document. At least where both protocols (http, https) are supported by the server.
* What do you have in mind with respect to "security violations"? The only thing that comes to mind is the case where the server uses an invalid certificate and client libraries throw errors because of the security policies. In that case the server configuration is broken.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by cportele
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1085#issuecomment-513815482 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 22 July 2019 14:28:41 UTC