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

Re: Hash vs Hashless URIs

From: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:19:01 +0100
Message-ID: <50AB9155.2090201@salzburgresearch.at>
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

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