- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:54:28 +0000
- 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 their. Best, Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 18:55:39 UTC