- From: Mo McRoberts <mo@nevali.net>
- Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:00:22 +0100
- To: jeff@sayremedia.com
- Cc: "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 23 Apr 2011, at 23:29, Jeff Sayre wrote: > >>> On 23 Apr 2011, at 19:08, Jeff Sayre wrote: >>>> Thus, WebID is not just for the Web. > >> On 23 Apr 2011, at 1:21 PM, Henry Story wrote: >>> Agree, but one should pause at the word "just" here. It makes me wonder: >>> what else do we have that is bigger? It's a bit like saying Bill Gates > is just >>> rich.... > > Removing 'just' from my sentence would not make any sense. The point is > that WebID has a practical role beyond the Web (big W). The Internet is > bigger than the Web platform. Non-webby protocols can harness the power of > WebID. In particular, encouraging e-mail clients not to treat S/MIME signed or encrypted e-mail using certificates from authorities they don't recognise (including, of course, self-signed certs) as “untrusted” rather than “INVALID” wouldn't be a bad thing… I appreciate, of course, that it's a can of worms. (But, given that practically every e-mail client on the planet understands S/MIME, there's a big surface-area there for use of WebID beyond web authentication — why *shouldn't* I be able to use my WebID certificate to sign e-mail messages, after all?) M.
Received on Sunday, 24 April 2011 16:47:23 UTC