- From: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:52:48 +0200
- 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: http://example.org/?secretaryof=http://bob.example.com/#me 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