- From: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:19:01 +0100
- To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- CC: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
+1 On 20/11/12 00:36, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote: > I don't deny the fact that hash URIs have their advantages and I personally > prefer them too for WebID, but I don't see the need to set that in stone > wrt to WebID URIs. Like I said before, who knows what new mechanism will > come out of the TAG or elsewhere 2 years down the road? Mandating hash URIs > means that any kind of innovation in the realm of WebID will be impossible > without breaking the spec. > > Can't we agree on the following compromise? => only use hash URIs in the > non-nominative examples. This is leave for innovation down the road, in the > meantime most people can follow the hash routes unless they prefer some > other way. > > Does mandating "hash URIs only" provide any advantage in terms of > implementing a WebID verifier? A verifier would still rely on HTTP to > dereference the WebID URI, and follow any redirect if necessary. What are > the advantages from a verifier standpoint? How does it make is simpler than > just any kind of URI? -- Sergio Fernández Salzburg Research +43 662 2288 318 Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II A-5020 Salzburg (Austria) http://www.salzburgresearch.at
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 14:20:02 UTC