Re: Hash Discussion Overview II - the return

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 17:35:35 +0100
Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash2

FWIW, I don't think WebID should place any restrictions on users'
choice of URI; just as it shouldn't place any restrictions on what
ciphers are used for the TLS sessions established.

I'm not saying that restrictions should not exist. People shouldn't be
using, say, a Caesar cipher (look it up if you don't know) for TLS; but
restrictions on TLS ciphers should happen in the TLS specs, not in
WebID.

The WebID spec is the wrong *layer* to address this sort of issue. It's
an issue that needs resolving (even if that resolution might be that
the status quo is OK) at the linked open data level; or maybe even at
URI.

So WebID shouldn't place restrictions on what URIs people choose to
identify themselves with. I don't even think we should require
HTTP/HTTPS; if people choose to use an FTP URI, chances are that most
existing implementations of WebID would cope. If they choose to use
an NNTP URI... well, I tend to be in favour of giving people enough rope
to fashion themselves the very best noose possible.

Be liberal in what you accept; be conservative in what you omit. The
spec should accept whatever URIs people want to use; how-to guides
should steer people towards sane options.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>