W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Matter of DN and what's possible

From: Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:37:08 +0000
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <9AFCF394-9D95-4243-931B-8572AD8A16CA@bbc.co.uk>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 9 Jan 2012, at 23:07, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 1/9/12 5:43 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>> On 9 Jan 2012, at 22:28, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1/9/12 5:22 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>>>> On 9 Jan 2012, at 22:15, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 1/9/12 4:58 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>>> On 9 Jan 2012, at 22:49, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 1/9/12 4:44 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>>>>> yes I see. So, you are saying you are a document. Why do you want to do that?
>>>>>>> He is saying, a document at an address holds my description!
>>>>>> Ah and what if that document contains the description of 10 people?
>>>>> But why would it? How does that question not apply to a # style of HTTP URI?
>>>> Because the behaviour is extremely well-defined with a #-style URI? That's (partly) why they existÖ
>>> You are wrong!
>> I beg your pardon?
>> 
>> To spell it out:ó
>> 
>> If I have a URI of http://example.com/foo#f
>> 
>> A request goes to example.com:80 for /foo, it returns a document containing descriptions of:
>> 
>> #a
>> #b
>> #c
>> #d
>> #e
>> #f
>> #g
>> #h
>> 
>> The consumer picks out #f. Straightforward. So how, exactly, am I wrong, given the question that you asked?
> 
> The question is about URIs. I asked why would that not apply to # style of URIs? You respond with # URIs being clearly defined. So I ask you again: what do we do with HTTP URIs that aren't so well defined? Can we use them in SAN or not? If so, your end game is all about mandating a particular style of URI.


Go and read what you asked, and then what I answered. Your question directly above just doesnít make sense.

I am now utterly convinced that youíre just trolling; this is a waste of all of our time. Iím not sure why I believed that engaging with you would produce any sort of positive outcome ó itís clear that I was mistaken. Everything stated in clear and concise language is responded to as though it has been typed in English, machine-translated to Russian, translated back to English and then posted to the list. Similarly, your posts introduce new and previously unheard-of terminology with each passing day (with no clear purpose save for obfuscation), and requests for further explanation, clarity or simple examples invariably result in either a further garbled answer (when itís been explained to you that your posts are difficult to understand and often take many messages to get to the bottom of, youíve explained that you multitask; Iím certainly glad we can all be afforded so much of your attention), or a statement that having failed to explain what you were going to do, we're now going to have to attempt to determine what your proprietary platform does ó once youíve implemented it ó before weíre any the wiser about what is so utterly and critically wrong with the group and the specification (or the various implementations of it) and which you seemed very keen to get across. Were you not actually the founder of a software firm that Iíd heard of and whose products and services Iíve used, I doubt I would have gone to the trouble of attempting to figure out what it is youíre trying to say. As you are, Iím instead wondering why that position entitles putting forth such a confrontational attitude and behaving in a way which knowingly makes needless demands upon the time of anybody labouring under the impression that you might have something valuable to say. This may be an ďincubatorĒ, soon to be ďcommunityĒ group, but I surely canít be alone in expecting a certain degree of professionalism.

Iím going to continue monitoring the groupís progress, but IĎm retiring from any discussions. Iím going to have to write off the time spent as utterly wasted, which is a real disappointment.

-- 
Mo McRoberts - Technical Lead - The Space,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E,
Project Office: Room 7083, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ
Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 23:37:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 January 2012 23:37:37 GMT