- From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:43:41 -0500
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: public-webid Group <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGR+nnFvAz1SmO8UUBOuFbbqxhcRzC=m3==2LpTWgxJgEst4zQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote: > > On 10 Dec 2012, at 22:07, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: > > > We have tree definitions now: > > > > 1. > > [[ > > A WebID is a URI with an http or https scheme, which contains a URI > fragment identifier (i.e. a #id ) and which uniquely denotes an Agent > (Person, Organization, Group, Device, etc.). The URI without the fragment > identifier denotes the WebID Profile page. > > ]] > > > > 2. > > [[ > > A WebID is a URI with an HTTP or HTTPS scheme which uniquely denotes an > Agent (Person, Organization, Group, Device, etc.). This URI should include > a fragment identifier (a string after a "#" character). > > ]] > > > > 3. > > [[ > > A WebID is a URI with an HTTP or HTTPS scheme which uniquely denotes an > Agent (Person, Organization, Group, Device, etc.). > > ]] > > > > Here are a few remarks > > > > • Definition 1 does not contain a MUST. Do people want that there. (I > think Alex Bertails did.) > > • Def 2 and 3 do not say anything about the document. I think they > should - as it is this relation of the URI to the document that is > important important. I suggest it say: > > "Dereferencing the WebID URI returns the profile document." > > On further consideration I updated the wiki with the following clauses for > SHOULD and MUST, in order to use the same vocabulary of "denotation" as in > the first definition. > > "For WebIDs with fragment identifiers the URI without the fragment denotes > the document. For WebIDs without fragment identifiers an HTTP request on > the WebID MUST return a 303 with a Location header URI denoting the Profile > Document." > > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash2 > > in order to use the same "denotation" language. > > If this is ok with everyone, I'd like to ask Stephane to update the spec > branches that he has for > the SHOULD and the MUST clauses. > I'll wait another 24 hours in case someone has any remark regarding the changes above. will make the changes tomorrow if I don't hear anything in the meantime. Steph.
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 14:44:10 UTC