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

RE: self-signed

From: peter williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 06:54:57 -0700
Message-ID: <SNT143-ds17ADB0D54EC4B36441252992900@phx.gbl>
To: "'Mo McRoberts'" <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk>, "'Kingsley Idehen'" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Im just seeing filibuster, delay and a degree of specious argument, on this
issue

We discussed this topic in setting up the group - that we were about more
than http URIs. We wanted to ensure we were not a linked data group (without
denying the legitimacy of that movement). We wanted to ensure we did not
fall into the political space that RDF typically falls into, whose feedback
properties ensure the failure of adoption. We did want to be puritans, that
is - "induced" to leave England (and even Holland), because their
literalness in positions of power caused 50 years of constant war (to use a
historical reference).


What I want to see is any non http URI adoption, to ensure that
multi-scheme'ness (per se) is being built into implementations.

If I had a magic wand, Id have people agree to one that requires use of the
"start SSL" technique, wherein such as an http tunnel is upgraded once it
exists to an https tunnel. This forces the us to have considered the edge
cases of SSL, material to this protocol.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 5:12 AM
To: Kingsley Idehen
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Subject: Re: self-signed


On 19 Apr 2011, at 13:05, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> 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.

Yes, but you still need to have that code which knows *how*.

There is no double-standard in saying "I wish to implement a WebID server
which won't confuse people by only supporting half of the schemes they
expect. What do I need to support?", nor in providing the answers to that
question.


--
Mo McRoberts - Data Analyst - Digital Public Space, Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland,
40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA, Room 7066, BBC Television Centre, London
W12 7RJ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key 0x663E2B4A


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.
					
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 13:55:24 UTC

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