On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote: > > On 21 Nov 2012, at 18:25, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > > > Henry Story wrote: > >> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash > > > > I'm unsure that anything could be captured here which hasn't already > been captured by the exhaustive work of Jonathan Rees and others via > www-tag and the awwsw tf, see: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html > > > We can define WebIDs to be whatever we want I think. We can. The question is whether we should! option 1: define it the way we want (e.g. hash URIs only), and disregard any on-going work by the TAG, which might resolve the issue with a solution incompatible with the one we define today. option 2: leave it open and generic in our definition of WebID, but strongly encourage the use of hash URI via examples. Steph. PS: casted my vote + arguments at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash and I encourage others to do the same. > We had Tim Berners Lee argue > strongly in favor of hash urls. So I think it cannot be that this is as > clear > as you think. > > Please add your point to the wiki hash page. > > Henry > > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > -- Steph.
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 17:44:50 UTC