- From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:52:04 -0400
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rww@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 16:52:31 UTC
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: <snip> > Okay. Let's ignore the turtle side of things for now, all the arguments on > having a single common format supported by all are fairly sound for > interoperability reasons. > > So the issue comes down to #frag - this is familiar. > > Personally, I want to see as many people as possible using frag http uris > to denote agents, and also want to ensure that WebID protocol encourages > this > The WebID protocol should not encourage a particular pattern for mintings URI, who knows what will be fashionable in 2 years? what if TAG or some other group comes up with a resolution on the http-range14 debate? I'm not opposed to using #frag in non-normative examples in the spec, or in some kind of primer, but IMO for future proofing, the protocol should not be tied to #frag URIs or any other pattern. but does not prevent or preclude any dereferencable http URI, frag or > slash. yes Steph. > > For reference, would you be 0/1 with: > > a) definition WebID: an HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. Where you can GET > an RDF model as TURTLE. > > b) subjectAltName ... MUST be an HTTP URI ... > > Best, > > Nathan > > -- Steph.
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 16:52:31 UTC