Re: (Dis)Proving that 303s have a performance impact.

On 2/18/13 3:58 AM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Kingsley Idehen 
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 2/17/13 4:43 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>
>         6. Given that WebID isn't making hash-based URIs a MUST (and
>         nor should it, IMHO), and given that the spec shouldn't really
>         require top-to-bottom knowledge of the entire semweb
>         ecosystem, it is entirely sensible and normal to include
>         guidance which explains the above and provides sufficient
>         information to make a decision without acres of research.
>
>     I disagree.
>
>     Hopefully, you can understand that sentence.
>
>
> Kingsley, please try to provide short and concise arguments whenever 
> you disagree with something. I also have to say that having caught up 
> with the latest email threads, I find your tone very unprofessional. 
> If there is an argument you want to put forward, please make it short, 
> concise and on-topic. Don't spread it over lots of emails, as it 
> becomes increasingly difficult to keep track. This is just a friendly 
> advice from someone who's trying to keep up with lots of mailing lists.
>
> Regarding the note in question, I still wholeheartedly believe that 
> newcomers will have a hard time understanding _why_ we use hash-based 
> URIs. They may not be interested in the subtleties of linked data, but 
> they might still want to offer WebIDs to their users.
>
> I really wanted to keep the spec text simple, which is the main reason 
> why I added the note in the first place, as it avoids having a section 
> just to explain # URIs vs 303s.
> Andrei

Since you have the luxury of adding whatever you see fit to the spec, 
while being selective about my responses [1][2], here is a simple and 
concise request:

Please remove the notice about hashless URIs from the spec. It serves no 
purpose bar a weasel-style mechanism for negating the results of  last 
vote about the definition of a WebID.

Those of us that oppose the distracting notice do so for  because it 
conflates the following distinct concerns:

1. WebID Definition -- an HTTP URI based identifier that denotes an Agent .
2. WebID oriented Profile Document Definition-- a document that 
describes an Agent with the additional goal of verifying the identity of 
said Agent .
3. WebID oriented Authentication Protocol -- a TLS based protocol 
(WebID+TLS) that enables the verification of an Agent identity using its 
WebID.
4. How to Publish a WebID oriented Profile Document with WebID+TLS 
protocol in mind -- the actual act of publishing a Profile Document that 
seeks to deliver Web-scale verifiable identity using the WebID+TLS 
protocol .


Hopefully, this is concise and understandable.

Links:

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0027.html -- 
initial request (clearly verbose and incomprehensible) .
2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0045.html -- 
another .
3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/thread.html 
-- threaded view of this mailing list .

Bye.

Kingsley
>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Kingsley Idehen
>     Founder & CEO
>     OpenLink Software
>     Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>     Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>     <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>     Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>     Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>     LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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