W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Extending the WebID protocol with Access Delegation

From: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:52:48 +0200
Message-ID: <502F65F0.7000700@wp.pl>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, Read-Write-Web <public-rww@w3.org>
On 17.08.2012 22:09, Henry Story wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2012, at 11:11, Dominik Tomaszuk<ddooss@wp.pl>  wrote:
>> On 17.08.2012 10:56, Olivier Berger wrote:
>>> Is the On-Behalf-Of header necessary ?
>> +1
>> I propose to this step in my Ph.D. thesis URI query string
>> ?secretaryof=_encoded_URI
> You mean the resource you are requesting would have that attribute value?  How would a client know when it should add that attribute-value pair to a URI? Every resource on the internet would then need to follow this convention, which means URIs would no longer be opaque. This seems unworkable.
Agree. But On-Behalf-Of header is not a standard. It's too late to add 
in to Httpbis. Moreover, On-Behalf-Of is connected only with HTTP. What 
about other protocols?
This step is just key/value, where key is On-Behalf-Of and value is URI. 
So why don't use query string to encode URI a parameter of another URI?
In [1] you have:
URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
query = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
In conclusion, I see no problems with the equivalent provision:
What is important it do not extend any protocol or syntax, but works the 
same as:
On-Behalf-Of: http://bob.example.com/#me

So does Andre do in [2] REST API (request with <urlencoded WebID uri>).

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986
[2] https://auth.my-profile.eu/
Received on Saturday, 18 August 2012 09:53:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:10:32 UTC