Re: Web Identity and Discovery - WebID 1.0

On 6 Feb 2013, at 19:10, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> 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?

The voting was on the definition of a WebID. The WebID definition is in there as you wish,
and as Andrei pointed out this does not affect the definition.

The vote was not about wishing away reality though. And there are a number of realities. 

1. 303s require an extra connection (and have caching issues).
2. in the security section we will also be mentioning https uris, as improving security. Is that also going to be problematic? 

So for the moment I say we leave it as is. But we can also get a straw poll vote to see what the general mood is on it. 

Henry

> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/