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

Re: WebID video and demo

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 14:21:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4DC2EAA7.4070502@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> On 4/27/11 4:16 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>> The websocket version sounds pretty exciting, though using the flash
>> version in the interim seems to me to have quite a few advantages.

We are very close to getting the WebSockets version working.

> On 04/27/11 16:15, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Got to be able to replace Flash with WebSockets :-)

Yes, if we can. However, remember that there are many older browsers
that won't be able to use WebSockets. Other browsers like Firefox and
Opera have disabled it temporarily due to security concerns. We will
never be able to replace Flash with WebSockets in the older browsers and
thus the Flash raw sockets implementation will never entirely go away as
long as there are non-WebSockets browsers out there.

> On 04/27/11 16:34, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> I still think the storage abstraction has to be decoupled such that
> X.509 cert and associated private key are persisted (by user choice) to
> one of:
> 
> 1. Native OS keystore
> 2. Browser store
> 3. PEM file
> 4. Database -- via ODBC connection to a DBMS using HTML5 WebDB API
> 5. etc..

The storage mechanism in our particular implementation was chosen just
because it was the simplest way to implement what we wanted. There is
nothing, as far as we can see, that should couple the storage mechanism
to the WebID specification. So yes, we can give people that choice - but
many people are just going to choose the default.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released
http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/05/05/payswarm-sandbox/
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 18:21:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 May 2011 18:21:52 GMT