Re: DIDs and httpRange-14

On 4/11/19 2:56 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 4/11/19 11:30 AM, Dave Longley wrote:
>> There's a reason this issue has taken many groups down a DoS rabbit
>> hole: it is really more about philosophy than a practical concern.
>> Any abstraction is necessarily not the thing to which it refers.
>> But since we can only conceive of abstractions anyway, let's stop
>> worrying about it so much and get things done.
> 
> I fully agree.  And I say that as one who followed that rabbit hole a
> long way down, in days past.

+1 ... to be more blunt, there be dragons here and if you don't know
exactly what type of dragons these are, you're going to be burned very
badly... possibly by some of the rest of us in this group that don't
want to re-live the hell that was the HTTP Range 14 discussion (that
took 5 years to "officially" resolve, but still burns brightly to this
day... 17 years after the question was initially raised).

Here's the history, there are 5 years of discussion there:

https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14

... and that Web Technical Architecture Group's resolution (which was an
incomplete answer to the question):

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches

Received on Friday, 12 April 2019 13:55:54 UTC