On 2/6/13 6:39 AM, Andrei Sambra wrote: > As promised, I have updated the spec according to the latest poll > results. I've also cleaned it up a little, mainly fixing > inconsistencies with some terms. > > I would like to ask everyone to take a look and see if everything is > ok before we move to WebID-TLS. > > Here is the link to the latest version: > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/identity-respec.html > > Best, > Andrei Why do you still have this warning: "Implementers are highly encouraged to use hash URIs for the WebID HTTP URI. Even though 303 redirects have been used in the past, experience has shown that they can be difficult to deploy and can have an impact on performance. However WebID Verifiers must not fail when dereferencing hashless URIs, though they may flag them as potentially impacting on performance." You don't need that piece of confusion. The examples can be hashed based and just leave it at that. I thought this matter was completely closed based on the vote i.e.: 1. A WebID is a HTTP URI 2. Use hash based HTTP URIs in all examples. -- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:49 UTC