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

Re: Web Identity and Discovery - WebID 1.0

From: Erich Bremer <erich@ebremer.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 08:32:22 -0500
Message-ID: <5114FE66.8010200@ebremer.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid@w3.org
Hi Henry,

     I do understand what you are saying about redirects very well.  I 
just do not think performance comments about valid WebID method "A" 
versus valid WebID method "B" belong in the specification.  In another 
document, sure, just not the specification.  - Erich

On 2/7/2013 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
>> 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/
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 13:32:49 UTC

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