W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > November 2012

Re: New WebID spec on identity.

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:35:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnHeSLjV2jtF9NLwhRhoySEJB_Y9NsN0rn19jsVQi5WAPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
Cc: public-webid@w3.org, andrei.sambra@gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl> wrote:

> On 19.11.2012 15:04, Andrei SAMBRA wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I've started drafting the new WebID spec, which deals exclusively with
>> identity. It should reflect what we discussed at the last teleconf. You
>> can see the latest draft version here:
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/**raw-file/tip/spec/identity-**respec.html<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/identity-respec.html>
>>
>> I'm not even sure how to call it at this point, since WebIDentity
>> Identity spec just doesn't sound right. Maybe we should call it the
>> "WebID spec", and refer to the old one as WebID-TLS.
>>
>> Please let me know if/what comments you may have, so I can make the
>> necessary adjustments.
>>
> My comments:
> 1. section 6.1.1: add FOAF properties, which are used in spec, i.e.
> foaf:nick, foaf:weblog, foaf:knows. Note that foaf:knows is in domain and
> range of Person (not Agent)
> 2. section 6.3: Fragment "The style="word-wrap: break-word; white-space:
> pre-wrap;" attributes allow the number to be displayed on more than one
> line so that it will wrapped across lines and not just continue off to the
> right of the screen." is not necessary.
> 3. section 6.3: attributes @xml:lang="en" and @dir="ltr" in html element
> is not necessary. This example should be minimal.
> 4. section 6.3: who the example isn't in RDFa Lite 1.1?
>

re RDFa snippet specifically, reduced it to a few lines by switching to
RDFa Lite and removing the doctype. This snippet is self-contained and can
be pasted as is in an HTML5 page. Also removed the inaccurate and
irrelevant mime type statement above it. thanks.

Steph.


> 5. section 2: Outline isn't consistent with the facts.
> 6. section 6.2 and 6.3: IMO sec 6.2 and 6.3 should be reversted and to
> last sec (Turtle) should be add remarks about RDF/XML and <link/>
> 7. section C.1 FOAF spec should be added to References
>
> Best,
> Dominik Tomaszuk
>
>
>
>> Best,
>> Andrei
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Steph.
Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 22:35:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:45 UTC