- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:30:39 +0200
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@fundacionctic.org>, WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org
2011/10/14 Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>: > Ok, > It looks like we have enough implementers and other who like cert:key . > I'll replace the cert:public_key with it. > When we have a few implementations we can then remove the "unstable" flags. > Does someone want to take on the task of rewriting the examples in the > spec to use cert:key instead of cert:identity ? Is now a good time for other clean up? public_exponent -> exponent? add PrivateKey class? obvious use case, your protected private key on your local device is to be used by a robot to perform tasks for you there's also a nice feature with most private keys that they are protected by a passphrase ... on the GPG mail list this week, someone offered to post his private key in the new york times, he was that confident of the strength of his passphrase! :) > Henry > > On 14 Oct 2011, at 14:52, Sergio Fernández wrote: > > +1 for me as well to cert:key > > El 13/10/2011 21:05, "Andrei Sambra" <andrei@fcns.eu> escribió: >> >> +1 for me as well. Good, elegant solution. >> >> I can't comment on it too much, but I'm trying to follow this topic. >> >> Andrei >> >> Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl> wrote: >>> >>> On 13.10.2011 14:41, Henry Story wrote: >>> > cert key has my +1 too. >>> +1 for key:cert >>> >>> >>> Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk >>> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > foaf-protocols mailing list > foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org > http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols >
Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 13:31:20 UTC