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

Re: self-signed

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:19:12 -0400
Message-ID: <4DADEE40.7080404@openlinksw.com>
To: jeff@sayremedia.com
CC: nathan@webr3.org, public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 4/19/11 3:58 PM, Jeff Sayre wrote:
>> Nathan wrote:
>>
>> ...precluding all schemes bar one really isn't a wise
>> move, even just for the sake of future proofing the thing!
> To date I have not commented on many of the issues presented to this IG as
> it seems often the case, that with hotly-debated topics, given enough time
> the issue comes full circle and previously-discussed details get forgotten
> or washed over.
>
> Henry has been very clear on at least four (4) occasions that the WebID
> spec will not be single-scheme focused. It will not be HTTP-scheme
> mandatory.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2011Apr/0223.html
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2011Apr/0225.html
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2011Apr/0229.html
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2011Apr/0319.html
>
> What he has said is that it makes sense to focus first on one task.

Yes, but with degrading clarity IMHO.

When execution of the critical task at hand potentially breaks the 
bigger goal what are folks to do? Condone it? Or raise a red flag to 
prevent propagation?

Knee jerk reactions don't solve the problem as your links demonstrate. 
Henry isn't scheme specific, but condones it (hopefully inadvertently) 
due to his perceived fixation on the task as hand.

Management isn't easy in any realm let alone the tech realm.


> Quoting Henry, "Let us get the test cases and documentation for https
> webid's under our belt, then we can move to the other schemes."

That's the problem right there. What does that mean?  How do you move 
over to other schemes if the protocol in question is scheme agnostic?

> It does not get anymore clear than that.

As you can see, from my vantage point, it doesn't get any more unclearer 
than that :-)

> Let's focus on the first task. Once we've adequately tested https WebIDs
> and feel comfortable with what we've learned, we can move on to another
> protocol.

I don't see scheme agnosticism as a task. I see ensuring this is clear 
to implementers as being a major task. It has little to do with code.

> I'm not sure how many of you have the privilege to work on open standards
> during company time (in other words, your company lets you "freely" work
> on Web standards during company time), but some of us volunteer our time.

I don't grok that. Who pays for my time? Who pays for the 
implementations we've done? We have to be objective. Can't jump to 
conclusions about others. Not good.

> We are off the clock. We do not earn a paycheck for the time spent on this
> IG, any other IG, or any other open source projects. Our time is very
> limited and comes out of our personal free time.

See comment above.

> For those of you who know me, I'm all for vigorous debate--when it is
> productive. But this large animal has been beaten to death.

It hasn't.

Here is the fundamental goal behind my comments. Implementers should 
understand from the onset that WebID is scheme agnostic. Don't implement 
its on any other basis. Nothing I've said requires them to code for each 
scheme. It just says, HTTP isn't the only scheme. When handling faults, 
don't assume a non HTTP scheme WebID == invalid.

>   If we cannot
> settle on a clear, well-defined plan of action, then my time and yours is
> being wasted.

Methinks, the biggest wastage will occur when after all of this we end 
up with a scheme specific protocol presented to the broader audience 
(typically and rightfully skeptical) as open and scheme agnostic. 
Knowing all your good work and time amounts of a DoD deliverable simply 
isn't fun. Most important of all, for me personally or OpenLink Software 
(my employer), WebID in any form has zero effect. I am sadly habitual 
about sharing my concerns with others that seek to pursue openness but 
don't always truly understand what it actually entails.

As I've been told many a time over 20+ years, maybe you need to be a 
little selfish instead :-(


Kingsley
> Jeff
>
>
>
>> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> Not knowing how to deal with URI type (scheme) != a valid or invalid
>>> WebID. Today, code is emerging that takes the view that WebIDs that
>>> aren't HTTP scheme based == invalid.
>> That's a very valid point, mapping to well defined protocols and
>> encouraging (or expecting) their use is one thing, but precluding all
>> schemes bar one really isn't a wise move, even just for the sake of
>> future proofing the thing!
>>
>> Fully agree w/ the approach you outline above kinglsey, if you don't
>> understand the scheme you simply don't know if it's a webid, nothing
>> more, nothing less.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nathan
>
>


-- 

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 20:19:37 UTC

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