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

RE: WebID in Browsers conf feedback

From: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:06:40 -0700
Message-ID: <SNT143-w169B6F53BB6C4D599EB20692660@phx.gbl>
To: <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>

I think there is an entire topic missing - if one is  to respond to the 2 objections presented (vs hide them under the carpet).
 
Its the topic of qualifying the authority component of the webid claim, persuant to deciding to follow the ref (or not). It concerns leveraging the authority resolver built into the web - DNS resolvers. It concerns how DNS resolvers are then organized - whether one is using a public resolver, or a private-walled-garden resolver that has a "non-public" zone replication/trust model and/or zone key signing/distribution.
 
But, I'm not convinced anyone has accepted the premise of the objection we are hearing - that refs have to first qualified, before being re-deferenced.
 
Im half expecting to hear folks argue: oh the web as a giant dynamic system will crowdsource whats viable and sustaintable, and the faff and disrpeputable stuff will eventually converge to zero (if one waits long enough). And, to be webby, THIS is the premise we MUST accept (rather than fiddle with DNS authority models, say).
 
 
 
 
 
 
> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 19:57:40 +0200
> From: danny.ayers@gmail.com
> To: home_pw@msn.com
> CC: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WebID in Browsers conf feedback
> 
> On 12 June 2011 19:25, Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > Little or none of this is talked about in the spec.
> 
> What words do you think are needed in the spec to address these issues?
> 
> Cheers,
> Danny.
> 
> -- 
> http://danny.ayers.name
> 
 		 	   		  
Received on Sunday, 12 June 2011 18:07:08 UTC

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