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

Re: hash/303, all use cases, requirements, thoughts, notes, approaches, use cases, user stories..

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:54:28 +0000
Message-ID: <50AD2364.30007@webr3.org>
To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote:
>> On 21 Nov 2012, at 18:25, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>> Henry Story wrote:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash
>>> I'm unsure that anything could be captured here which hasn't already
>> been captured by the exhaustive work of Jonathan Rees and others via
>> www-tag and the awwsw tf, see:
>>>  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/defininguris.html
>> We can define WebIDs to be whatever we want I think.
> We can. The question is whether we should!
> option 1: define it the way we want (e.g. hash URIs only), and disregard
> any on-going work by the TAG, which might resolve the issue with a solution
> incompatible with the one we define today.
> option 2: leave it open and generic in our definition of WebID, but
> strongly encourage the use of hash URI via examples.

Hi Steph,

Wise words, I think the TAG have committed to not falling on either side 
of the debate, but rather fostering interop, so I doubt option 1 would 
be ever happen. That said, option 2 seems to be the only viable, non 
exclusive, way forward here - and it's been the approach many of us have 
adopted in communications and tooling for years.

ps: thanks for taking this to the TAG, I was glad to see it being raised 


Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 18:55:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:46 UTC