W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > April 2011

Re: a totally minimal RDFa doc, please

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:52:58 +0200
Cc: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>, WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <504096F4-E372-4733-84C6-BF32A66CEFA3@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 14 Apr 2011, at 17:41, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

>> (I generated the page from the second tab of http://x509.me
>> The test a certificate option. My cert was generated of the first page (optional). My cert had a SAN pointing to a blank page to start with. Press the test button on the second tab. It fails as it was a blank page and spits out the rdfa required for it to pass. Cut, copy, paste.)
>> 
> I just tested the service above.
> 
> Results:
> 
> 1. HTTP scheme WebIDs - Pass
> 2. Non HTTP scheme WebIDs - Fail .
> 
> WebID is not about HTTP scheme WebIDs, solely. Courtesy of WWW ubiquity, HTTP scheme WebIDs are a very cost-effective *option*. Important downside: they are unintuitive. Basically, the problem addressed by WebFinger and Fingerpoint. Thus, we must stick to URI scheme agnosticism re WebID verification.

yes, but not everybody has time to implement all the other schemes, which have not yet undergone the same level of scrutiny. Let us get the test cases and documentation for https webid's under our belt, then we can move to the other schemes. 

> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	
> President&  CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 16:04:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:24 UTC