W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > April 2013

Re: WebID Simple (was: Archaic HTTP "From:" Header)

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 08:18:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnF49+V3UVPTNjPmUgavfcoHcOF7URdiv18OZxKez3p7Aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
 wrote:

>
>
>
> On 4 April 2013 03:32, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/3/13 7:01 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/04/2013, at 4:18 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> I think the HTTP "From:" header [1] is now truly archaic circa. 2013.
>>>> If the range of this particular predicate was a URI it would really aid our
>>>> quest for a RWW.
>>>>
>>> It's in active use by spiders and robots.
>>>
>>> Suggestion:
>>>>
>>>> As part of our RWW bootstrap effort, we could consider an "X-From:"
>>>> header that basically takes a URI or Literal value.
>>>>
>>>> I think we can flesh this out across WebID and RWW via implementations
>>>> before moving up to TAG and IETF.
>>>>
>>>> Mark: what do you think, anyway ? :-)
>>>>
>>> If you want something that takes a link, we have a Link header.
>>>
>>> Whatever you do, don't prefix it with X-.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Okay re. not taking the X- route.
>>
>> With regards to "From:" I am saying it should accept literals or URIs
>> instead of just literals. Net effect, I can then use:
>> kidehen@openlinksw.com or <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com**> or <
>> http://kingsley.idehen.net/**dataspace/person/kidehen#this<http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this>>
>> .
>>
>> "Link:" is also a good idea, I'll maul this over as it could also work
>> from the desired bootstrap perspective.
>
>
> +1
>
> In fact we could call this "WebID Simple" perhaps?
>

I'm trying to picture what kind of identifiers you are advocating to use
for WebID Simple. Are you trying to generalize the current WebID identity
(HTTPS URIs only) to encompass other URI schemes like mailto:?

Steph.


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:

> By now we have broken WebID down into 3 cleanly separate concerns.
>
> 1. Identifiction
> 2. Authentication
> 3. Authorization
>
> (1) is really a great unsolved problem on the web still
>
> The WedID+TLS spec has a neat way of solving BOTH (1) by putting one or
> more URIs in the v3 subjectAltName and also (2) via PKI
>
> It seems we have a good solution to part (1) using the "From" header which
> has been around for quite a while.
>
> This topic has come up a few times in the past 3 years, maybe it's time to
> make it into an offical spec.
>
> I know we're getting into branding territory, which can be thorny, but
> perhaps the name "WebID Simple" would suffice, much like we have "WebID +
> TLS" ...
>
> Any better names?  Thoughts?
>



-- 
Steph.
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2013 12:19:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:43 UTC