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

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

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:20:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLNDa5kNABDPANWpf_+r4H74GRQ8k6YJZ-hgbnznhhxRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
On 4 April 2013 14:18, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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:?
>

The WebID simple I guess would be aligned with definition in the WebID
Identity spec

The from header would take any URI or literal

So you are not limited


>
> 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 12:21:27 UTC

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