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

Re: ftp scheme

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:05:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4DADB2CC.7040800@webr3.org>
To: jeff@sayremedia.com
CC: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Jeff Sayre wrote:
>> 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.

huge -1 from me, http(s):// is fine, mailto: would be nice and perhaps 
if we really wanna scrape the barrel with something people actually 
still use, ldaps. Speaking of schemes for webids here.

saying that, I'll happily give a huge +1 to showing webid working with 
other transfer protocols like ftp and websockets, pop3 over ssl, scp, 
*+ssh - but that's a very different issue.

and finally, if we really really want to look to support any uri at all 
with any scheme, then spend some time thinking about directory / profile 
lookup services instead, one solution to cover them all.

cheers,

nathan
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 16:06:22 UTC

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