- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:03:41 -0500
- To: public-webid@w3.org
> I don't have time to spend on endless debates when only a very few > individuals are noisy. I define and implement systems. Allowing myself a totally off-topic related side note: I find the tone around here, recently, highly inappropriate and I think W3C team members should think twice before they hit the send button, sometimes. I know both Alex and Kingsley for years now and have been working with both and I think it is safe to say that both of you implement stuff and deliver. Let's not go there and focus on arguments that are at least loosely related to the content, shall we, pretty please? Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel.: +353 91 495730 http://mhausenblas.info/ On 15 Nov 2012, at 16:57, Alexandre Bertails wrote: > [snip] > >>> That was the concern of the people who set the definition for WebID at >>> TPAC. >> >> Not wanting to go backwards, instead of forwards. The conclusion at TPAC >> were simply wrong albeit well intended. > > Maybe you need to ask yourself why all the people in the room agreed, > and why you're still fighting? > >> >>> I don't understand why people are loosing time with changing the >>> definition. >> >> Because any definition of WebID that includes specific references to >> hash URIs and Turtle is broken. Simple as that. > > To you maybe. Not to the people interested in defining the standard, > and with adoption as a goal. > > I don't have time to spend on endless debates when only a very few > individuals are noisy. I define and implement systems. > > So I would suggest to people to focus on the definition we had > previously, and adapt the spec and our implementations accordingly. > > Let's move forward please. > > Alexandre. > >> >> >> Kingsley >>> >>> Alexandre. >>> >>>> >>>> For WebID based authentication to work it doesn't need to compromise the >>>> virtues of URIs. Just use simple examples to make matters clearer. >>>> >>>> The solution to the problem is that you don't introduce technology via a >>>> technical spec. It's conventionally achieved as follows: >>>> >>>> 1. conceptual guide and overview >>>> 2. technical specs >>>> 3. implementation guides and examples -- this is where you can be >>>> specific about URLs, Turtle docs etc.. by using them in all the >>>> examples. >>>> >>>> When you start from #2 you are vulnerable to: >>>> >>>> 1. political distractions -- e.g., format (as opposed to semantics) >>>> oriented warfare >>>> 2. FUD -- when the abstract nature isn't obvious those threatened will >>>> come at you with FUD. >>>> >>>> We don't need to compromise the essence of the Web for all of this to >>>> work. >>>> >>>> Remember, HTML wasn't prescribed to the world en route to WWW bootstrap, >>>> the "view source" pattern from early browsers enabled folks to cut and >>>> paste what was behind the page (which could have been anything) into new >>>> spaces en route to understanding the implications of fusing Hypertext >>>> and TCP/IP. >>>> >>>> Standards are retrsopective things, they are the result of coalescing >>>> around what works, so the sequence is always: >>>> >>>> 1. de facto standard -- common practice >>>> 3. industry standard -- accepted best practice. >>>> >>>> >>>> Kingsley >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Kingsley Idehen >>>> Founder & CEO >>>> OpenLink Software >>>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com >>>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen >>>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about >>>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 22:04:12 UTC