- From: Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 16:47:58 +0100
- Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFG79ejNUG71asQvZJnCqZZFFe29UsYG+LVC4a0iWeyXputYvg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote: > On 2/6/13 10:10 AM, Henry Story wrote: > >> On 6 Feb 2013, at 15:39, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> >> 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<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. >>> >> yes, but it is still true that there is a cost for the client and for >> deployment of non hash based URIs, since they require 1 extra >> dereferencing: ie. one more connection on the network. The speed of light >> being limited, this is a cost. >> > > Yes, but doesn't need to be in the spec. People are going to work with > examples. The examples are the effective route to hash URI utility etc.. I strongly believe that having this notice is very important, since it ties together fragment identifiers with documents and the fact that #-less URIs need to rely on 303 redirects. In the end it's just a note, with no impact on the definition itself, since I've removed the part about verifiers. > > >> I would change the "can have impact on performance" to "have impact on >> performance". >> >> Perhaps "highly encouraged" can be reduced to "encouraged". In any case >> we need some reason >> to explain in the spec why the examples are in terms of hash uris. >> > > If all the examples are hash URI based, the mission will be accomplished. > Just as the whole Semantic Web mission was unaccomplished by the prevalence > of RDF/XML across all examples produced by the W3C. > > Kingsley > > >> Henry >> >> >>> -- >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Kingsley Idehen >>> Founder & CEO >>> OpenLink Software >>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen> >>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen >>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about> >>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >> > > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > Founder & CEO > OpenLink Software > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen> > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 15:48:46 UTC