- From: alex thompson <pierogitus@hotmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 23:45:18 +0000
- To: Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Manu, > I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, so am happy to add > an experimental section stating something to the effect of "Hey, if you > want to embed a hashlink in a path or a fragment identifier, here's one > way you can do it, and this is experimental and we're looking for > feedback on whether or not this is useful to you. Is this the only way > you can achieve your use case?". I think the approach taken in RFC6920 is more appropriate. Basically a disclaimer that acknowledges the ambiguity but still gives solid guidance that covers all the scenarios. Also since hashlink kind of supersedes RFC6920 I think it makes sense to have parity in this area. Kim, > - Could we envision a hashlink as something that's up to the caller to > parse and handle? I.e. caller extracts url (doesn't send hl) and then > confirms content received matches? Yes that's the use case for fragment so you can add an integrity value to a URL you don't control even if you can't support the hl: scheme
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2020 23:45:31 UTC