Re: #URIs and redirections

On 29 Nov 2012, at 19:36, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 11/28/12 3:25 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
>> But the following, which Henry initially seemed to be
>> suggesting as better (though his conclusion seems otherwise)?
>> 
>>> >-http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows#•
>>> >-http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox#•
>>> >-http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person#•
>>> >-http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent#•
>> These URIs don't look right in Mail.app.
>> 
>> The URI highlighting stops at the last solidus ("/"), so
>> they all look like links to the same page --
>> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>  -- and that is where clicking
>> them takes me.
>> 
>> (I am then redirected to the same<http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/>  as above -- but again, if the redirections were handled as
>> I suggest above, this end result would be very wrong.)
>> 
>> Be seeing you,
>> 
>> Ted
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> A: Yes.http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
>> | Q: Are you sure?
>> | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>> | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>> 
>> Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
>> Senior Support & Evangelism  //mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
>>                              //http://twitter.com/TallTed
>> OpenLink Software, Inc.      //http://www.openlinksw.com/
>>          10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
>>      Weblog   --http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
>>      LinkedIn --http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
>>      Twitter  --http://twitter.com/OpenLink
>>      Google+  --http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/
>>      Facebook --http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
>> Universal Data Acchess, Integration, and Management Technology Providers
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> To cut a long story short, I've generated a certificate and produced a screenshot [1] from my keychain instance. I have a hash URI denoting the certificate issuer's alternative name (IAN) and a hashless URI denoting the certificate subject's alternative name (SAN). Clicking on the IAN leads to a 404 since the # was transformed into %23,  a decision out of my hands as the end-user i.e., a bug in keychain.
> 
> As you know, we (historically) have little interest is going around asking vendors to fix bugs in their products, on their on schedules etc.. It's utterly impractical and a complete waste of time.
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11096946/WebID/keychain-http-hash-versus-slash-uri-issue-interop-showcase.png -- maybe a link for the relevant section of the for and against Wiki, for future reference.

I can't remember if I put a bug report to apple for that. It's still worth doing it I think. 

In any case those types of bugs are not relevant to our hash uri issue. So I'll remove that
from our hash wiki later.
  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash

That does not mean that I am decided on one point or another on the hash issue. But we need
to concentrate on issues that are relevant; and bugs in software - especially something as little
used as the apple keychain - cannot be a point in favor of one position or the other.

There will be other issues like that in the hash wiki I'd like to reorganise or remove or
rewrite, so that the criticism are more to the point. It will help when we get the best
arguements on either side to help us explain our decision later on.

Henry


> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/