Re: [Solid26: Implementation Guide] On Solid26 (WAC|ACP)

The discussion here has been very interesting.

There was an initial document with proposal that was largely rejected for
inferring a decision that was nor discussed, nor taking consideration of
years of works by developers.

It was then decided to have a time constraint inventory of implementations.
The result was very clear and gathered a largely approved constat.

This need to be respected.

Some considered that past is not way to the future.

I would like to make a few comments:

- this is a way we have already lived with INRUPT
  - no discussion: we know what is best and professional
  - no explanation to why WAC could not evolve to resolve these issues
  - Experiments were made to use ACP <---> WAC compatibility with very
vague results and more complexity.

- we recently heard
  - WAC cannot be expanded to include deny constraints with no try to prove
it
  - ACP is not really compliant to expected security but it can be solved
(how, why..)

All this do not seem to be of help to good specification.

LWS is coming with apparently a higher view.
We shall see what and see how to integrate it to our existing works :
servers, apps , use cases, experiments like activity pub, git, other
protocols and encoding to secure content.

In the mean time do we want to open a break in the open source Solid
Community for Solid26 ?

Alain