Re: Web Identity and Discovery - WebID 1.0

On 2/6/13 1:05 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2013, at 19:00, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the end it's just a note, with no impact on the definition itself, since I've removed the part about verifiers.
>> That's an inaccurate assumption. If that were true, I wouldn't be writing this mail :-)
> The text currently is this:
>
> [[
> Hash URIs are encouraged when choosing a WebID since 303 redirects impact performance for clients. All examples in the spec will use such hash URIs.
> ]]
>
> What is wrong with it?
>
> Henry

It is totally unnecessary.

Just make examples and demo using hash URIs. Don't open up a can of 
worms and unnecessary inertia by placing implementation optimization in 
a specification.

I would like to assume that the voting produced clarity about this 
thorny issue. Can we not accept the findings from the vote?



-- 

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