W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > May 2010


From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 12:21:41 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikpwEBsolH1mMsjhGWrVwFAEAMHK6GOLDL9jyr0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi all!

Does there exist any advice regarding whether HTTPS URI:s constitute
good identifiers (canonical URI:s)? Or is the HTTPS protocol an
implementation detail better led to via redirection, HTTP Upgrade or

And would it be fair to claim that non-HTTPS URI:s are "potentially
harmful" due to the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks? Or is (e.g.)
HTTPS not enough by itself (since trusting a certificate is still up
to the carefulness of clients), so it would be moot to promote it by
itself in Linked Data scenarios? I suppose that using HTTPS for each
URI leads to higher demands on the publisher, but I'd prefer more
solid arguments for/against recommending it..

Best regards,
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 10:29:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:48 UTC