- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:19:30 -0400
- To: public-fedsocweb@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4FFB12A2.6080907@openlinksw.com>
On 7/9/12 12:15 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote: > On 09/07/12 11:41 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 7/9/12 11:20 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote: >>> There's obviously some differences on the subject, but if you insist >>> on HTTP URIs for account identifiers, feel free to change >>> "evan@example.com" to "http://example.com/evan" in the examples. >> you are conflating a URI with an http: scheme URI just because http: >> URLs are prevalent on the Web. > I explicitly said "HTTP URIs", so I'm pretty sure I'm not conflating > anything with anything. > > Melvin balked at the Webfinger identifiers I had in my examples, so I > suggested he think of them in terms of HTTP URIs instead. > > I'd rather not stop the discussion at step 1. > > -Evan > My critical point is this, when you make statements such as: ".. if you insist on HTTP URIs for account identifiers, feel free to change "evan@example.com" to "http://example.com/evan" in the examples. " It opens a can or worms. You close the can of worms, for instance, if you say: ".. if you insist on HTTP URIs for account identifiers, feel free to change "evan@example.com" to "http://example.com/evan#this" in the examples. " Here's why, you've implicitly disambiguated references to two distinct entities: 1) a profile bearing web resource 2) profile subject . Anyway, case closed until we have context that accentuates this point or lays foundation for more productive discourse :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 17:19:54 UTC