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 09:22:48 -0700
Message-ID: <6205f16c7355fdee00faf8ebc8c110e0.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: jeff@sayremedia.com, "Mo McRoberts" <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk>, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "WebID XG" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Okay, with just two others besides myself chiming in, I can see that we
are already wasting time debating this issue. So, unlike with political
elections, I can change my vote.

I rescind my +1 and will go back to a neutral state.

Focus is what is key. Adding more to our plate has become a distraction.
Frankly, I'm beginning to get overwhelmed with email overload again.

The most pressing WebID IG issue, as far as I'm concerned, is finishing
the Position Paper for the upcoming W3C's Identity in the Browser workshop
( http://www.w3.org/2011/identity-ws/ ). The submittal deadline is this
Friday.

How many of you have taken the time to read over our position paper?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L-PhczWNSciUIRCfsK92wRbxJEU1kKSwUcxFSz3DAu0/edit?hl=en&authkey=CJv5nPIJ#


Jeff





> 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 16:23:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 April 2011 16:23:17 GMT