W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Webkeys, OpenID, WebID, OAuth etc..

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:25:23 -0400
Message-ID: <5175AAC3.5020008@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: public-webpayments@w3.org
On 04/22/2013 03:35 AM, Henry Story wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2013, at 05:27, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>> On 04/21/2013 10:53 PM, Dave Longley wrote:
>>> On 04/21/2013 05:26 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>> In other words, your false claim about a "very complicated
>>>>> non-decentralized protocol" is still rooted in your continued
>>>>> disinterest in understanding what we implemented.
>>>> Can you find a mail where you publically explained how this
>>>> worked?
>>> Yes, I can find those and so can you. Search the foaf-protocols
>>> list, for instance.
>> August 10th, 2010 - Dave Longley explains the JavaScript+Flash-based
>> WebID+TLS protocol:
>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2010-August/003249.html
>> August 13th, 2010 - Henry Story responds to the thread:
>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2010-August/003287.html
> Good so I suppose with hindsight the idea of a Flash WebID+TLS
> protocol did not sound like such a good idea. As you see

There is still a misunderstanding. We didn't create that technology in 
order for us to pursue it. We created it to help *you* make the WebID 
technology more viable. Based on your comments and assumptions regarding 
Web Keys, you still don't understand this.

You weren't interested in what we created and didn't believe that there 
would be any issues with people widely-adopting WebID as a new 
authentication strategy. When you made it very clear the technology 
would be of no use to you, we dropped work on it. We had no hard 
feelings about that, rather, we considered it to be a missed opportunity 
for WebID. This was two years ago. We didn't pursue it any further; it 
has nothing to do with the technologies that we have since developed. 
The reason that it went nowhere was because it had no chance to go 
anywhere; no one was working on it.

WebID, on the other hand, has been worked on for several years now, but 
from what I can tell, it still has not been adopted by a wide audience. 
While there may be other reasons for that, I continue to believe that a 
major one is that no plan has ever been put into place to help regular 
web users transition to WebID. Again, the technology we created to try 
and aid you in this endeavor was rejected without it or its original 
need and purpose (as a transitional/catalyst mechanism) being understood.

I think this lack of understanding is still true today and there is no 
transitional technology in place to get people to adopt WebID... and 
there is minimal WebID adoption on the Web. My opinion is that these 
things are strongly related, yours is not. I don't expect either of our 
opinions to change any time soon; mine will change if WebID does gain 
wide-adoption soon. I advise you to change yours if WebID does not 
appear to be gaining any significant stream in the near future.

Dave Longley
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 21:24:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:03:31 UTC