On 2/6/13 1:05 PM, Henry Story wrote: > On 6 Feb 2013, at 19:00, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> >>> In the end it's just a note, with no impact on the definition itself, since I've removed the part about verifiers. >> That's an inaccurate assumption. If that were true, I wouldn't be writing this mail :-) > The text currently is this: > > [[ > Hash URIs are encouraged when choosing a WebID since 303 redirects impact performance for clients. All examples in the spec will use such hash URIs. > ]] > > What is wrong with it? > > Henry It is totally unnecessary. Just make examples and demo using hash URIs. Don't open up a can of worms and unnecessary inertia by placing implementation optimization in a specification. I would like to assume that the voting produced clarity about this thorny issue. Can we not accept the findings from the vote? -- 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