Re: Web Identity and Discovery - WebID 1.0

On 2/8/13 8:32 AM, Erich Bremer wrote:
> 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

+1

That's the fundamental issue, in a nutshell.

Kingsley
>
> 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/
>>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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