- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:05:19 -0400
- To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 4/19/11 3:36 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote: > On 19 Apr 2011, at 01:43, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >>> You're saying “WebID should support more than just http URIs” >>> >> It shouldn't be scheme specific in any shape or form. > Okay, I have a practical problem with this as written: how do I implement a WebID relying party which doesn't restrict itself to certain schemes? Relying party needs to treat WebID as a protocol comprised of: 1. URIs for Agent Identity (Names) 2. Protocol for validating Agent Identity. A URI is scheme agnostic. The fact that HTTP can be used as Name/Access mechanism doesn't imply this capability is unique to HTTP. You can make other URIs resolve. Webfinger and Fingerpoint are examples of how you make other URIs resolve to profile graphs, via the good of programming game known as "indirection". > There will _always_ be certain schemes which a server understands and schemes it doesn't. Client and Servers think about URIs in the purest sense of the abstraction. > You can't have WebIDs which are perfectly conformant, but only work properly (i.e., your FOAF document can be retrieved) on some servers but not others. Somewhere along the way, there has to be a list — which is part of WebID — which says “these are the mechanisms you need to implement in order to operate as a relying party”. Yes, much closer to what I am fundamentally seeking. We don't get there via double standards though :-) Ki > > > M. > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 12:05:42 UTC