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

On 2/18/13 10:58 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> On Mon 2013-Feb-18, at 15:24, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>   wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Nobody's being selective about your responses, it's just that there isn't consensus yet, and reaching one has been severely hampered by a steady stream of messages consisting of...

They are, and you are doing it right now. All I requested was removal or 
a vote. I even warned about not generating the massive thread that's 
ensued. Please take the time to create context for your comments. In my 
last mail I provide a URL for the genesis of this thread.

>
> • you've got loads of real-world experience and everybody else is dealing solely in theory and so you must be right and the rest are wrong;

Again, see my comment above. That wasn't my point, but you've found a 
reason to characterize my comments, links, and everything else as 
meaning just that.

>
> • complaints that your messages are being selectively paid attention to; and
>
> • an ultimatum that if a particular guidance note is not removed, you'll leave the group.

I will be leaving the group because my contribution have no value via 
generating comments of this kind. Clearly, I have too much time on my 
hands.

>
> All of this is grade-A histrionics, though I am wondering why the messages have continued given the ultimatum.
>
> You have stated that you think *the very presence* of a short note which explains why an otherwise completely unexplained (within the spec) aspect of the examples is written as such is both unnecessary and confusing. Clearly, others disagree with you.
>
> Your above-linked [1] poses a question and makes an assertion:
>
> The question:
>
> Q: Why is it there?
>
> The assertion:
>
> A: You don't need that piece of confusion. The examples can be hashed based and just leave it at that.
>
>
> The answer to that question is, as has now been stated a few times, “because otherwise it's not clear to the untrained eye what the purpose of the fragids in the examples is, and those who aren't complete novices minded to just copy & paste examples will either not know what they're for (bad) or ignore them completely (worse)”.
>
> You also assert that the presence of it is confusing.
>
> Taking the assertion first: I'm really struggling to wrap my head around the concept that the principle of a one-sentence line of explanatory text is confusing and can't for the life of me fathom a scenario where that's true unless it duplicates something already being stated clearly and obviously in the spec. Clearly, the form of words used might itself be confusing — but that's easy to solve by changing them to be clearer.
>
> Now, if the answer above is liable to be correct for more than an exceptional set of people (and it seems very likely that it will be once the spec is being read beyond the SW community), then that only leaves the issue of whether a guidance note will satisfy that issue and whether it will introduce more problems as a side-effect, as you state.
>
> So it boils down to this simple question:—
>
> Is it likely to be helpful to some readers of the spec to include a short note to explain the purpose of hash URIs in the examples, or is it likely to be otherwise confusing?

It is confusing.

We could have averted all of this by having a vote. That didn't happen.

>
> My stance is simply this: with the right form of words, it's very likely to be helpful, and shouldn't be confusing to anybody.

My point is that matters are being conflated. The definition of a WebID 
doesn't have cover WebID oriented profile document publication issues. 
That's a different document for a separate purpose.

>
> To advance things, it may — as you suggested previously, Kingsley — put that to a vote, though it is worth noting that when you wrote [2] it wasn't especially clear what should be voted on except the exact words as written by Andrei, which wouldn't have been at all helpful.

All I wanted was a vote on the notice. Keep it or remove it.

Kingsley
>
> M.
>
>>
>> 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
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Mo McRoberts - Technical Lead - The Space
> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E,
> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, Pacific Quay, Glasgow, G51 1DA
> Project Office: Room 7083, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -----------------------------
>
>
>


-- 

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