- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 00:25:54 +0000
- 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 00:27:09 UTC