- 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