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

Re: ftp scheme

From: Jeff Sayre <jeff@sayremedia.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:54:10 -0700
Message-ID: <f1dec62abe8432908c2197dbb8d4ab8c.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com>
To: "Mo McRoberts" <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "WebID XG" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
> On 19 Apr 2011, at 16:08, Henry Story wrote:
>
>> If people are for that please +1 and I'll add it as an issue.  When done
>> we can have a vote to open it too, the idea being to look at the spec
>> and see how it needs to be rewritten for ftp (and hence made generic
>> enough for other existing or yet to be URI schemes)
>
>
> While it's not a terrible proof-of-concept, and this isn't quite what you
> asked, it'd get a -1 from me as anything beyond a *pure proof-of-concept*
> places a hugely disproportionate burden on server implementors further on
> down the line.
>
> M.
>

That may be an issue, but Henry was asking a simpler question (which it
seems you acknowledged as well). I agreed that it should be added as an
issue, that it should be brought up for a vote. That is all.

Of course we need to stay narrowly focused at this time, working on our
simple proof of concepts and test implementations. We cannot focus on
every issue at the same time. Focus requires paying attention to just a
few details.

So, if this issue is going to distract us from our focus, then we should
pass. But, if it is something that people feel should be added as an issue
for a vote and later consideration, then I'm for it as it is one of the
simpler non-HTTP schemes to address with WebID.

Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 15:54:38 UTC

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