- From: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:10:54 +0200
- To: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>
- Cc: public-webid@w3.org
Hi.
Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
> Quoting Olivier Berger (2013-08-27 22:36:07)
>>
>> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
>>
>> >
>> > I find it a bad approach: the Photo is meant for visual
>> > identification, not as storage container for whatever possible to
>> > serialize in a visual container.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, that makes sense, of course, but on the other hand, the specs
>> (RFC 4880) mention :
>>
>> 5.12.1. The Image Attribute Subpacket
>>
>> The Image Attribute subpacket is used to encode an image,
>> presumably (but not required to be) that of the key owner.
>
> The reason I find it a bad approach is not that it is forbidden or
> explicitly discouraged (I agree that it isn't), but because of the use
> of indirections.
>
> Yes, you can use the oven to store marmelade and sugar. That is not
> forbidden or explicitly discouraged, but still odd.
>
> ...but then again: this time you didn't ask for my opinion ;-)
>
>
>> Btw, in principle, there could be other kinds of "user attributes"
>> ("5.12. User Attribute Packet) than the "image attribute" subpacket,
>> alhough the specs don't describe them.
>
> I suggest asking Daniel Kahn Gillmore. Both about his opinion on
> introducing a new subpacket, and about the status of his RFC6091.
>
> I'd rather you do it than me, as I expect you to much better be able to
> summarize to him what really is the issue here.
>
For the records, DONE, as a followup to previous discussions about WebID
use in Debian, on debian-devel list.
Best regards,
--
Olivier BERGER
http://www-public.telecom-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France)
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 09:11:24 UTC