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

Re: Web Identity and Discovery - WebID 1.0

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:39:47 -0500
Message-ID: <51126B33.4040607@openlinksw.com>
To: public-webid@w3.org
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 

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.



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

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 14:40:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:49 UTC