Re: Web Identity and Discovery - WebID 1.0

On 2/7/13 6:42 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2013, at 00:38, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/13 6:14 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>> On 8 Feb 2013, at 00:09, Erich Bremer <erich@ebremer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1  - The redirect performance statement is confusing to the specification document and should be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Whether I use SSD hard drives or mechanical hard drives will also affect the performance of my WebID implementation, but that fact doesn't belong in the specification either, nor does the redirect performance warning.  - Erich
>>> Whether you use SSD hard drives or a slow modem is ony accidentally related to the
>>> efficiency of fetching the Personal profile Document.
>>>
>>> The 303 redirect is essentially related to the efficiency of fetching the profile.
>>> There is no possible world in which you can make fetching a a 303 redirected
>>> document not require one more request to the server.
>>>
>>> It is quite surprising that this seems so difficult to understand. I think we may
>>> need to make this a lot clearer in the spec.
>> Henry,
>>
>> It has nothing to do with spec clarity, so please remove this from the spec. You can make a related document about your disputed 303 concerns outside the spec. If you won't take our guidance, then conduct a poll.
>>
>> A WebID is an HTTP URI. That's it.
> And we are not denying that.

But you are trying to force an item into the spec that's already been 
rejected. The warning notice is a roundabout way of forcing the issue 
re. hash based HTTP URIs.

Again, please drop the notice and stick to hash based HTTP URIs in 
examples and promotional material. That's the solution that will work 
and enable all of us return to the more important task of building and 
interop testing our respective Linked Data and WebID solutions.

Let's not open up a new and unproductive distraction.

Kingsley
>
> Henry
>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>> Henry
>>>
>>>> Erich Bremer
>>>> http://www.ebremer.com
>>>>
>>>> On 02/06/13 9:39 AM, Kingsley Idehen 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> 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
>> 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/
>


-- 

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