- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:54:17 +0000
- To: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
Excerpts from Melvin Carvalho's message of 2013-02-17 12:59:40 +0000: > "Note > > Hash URIs are encouraged when choosing a WebID since 303 redirects require > an extra HTTP request for an Agent to get from the > WebID<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/identity-respec.html#dfn-webid>to > the WebID > Profile<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/identity-respec.html#dfn-webid_profile>. > All examples in the spec will use such hash URIs." > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/identity-respec.html#the-webid-http-uri > > This has come up in some other threads. > > Leaving the # vs slash "perma debate" aside, may I propose that this part > is removed. > > While, I am in favour of the sentiment of using # URIs but I dont see any > evidence that this note will have the desired effect. Why even mention > 303s at all? All the examples use # URIs so, imho, this point is not > really needed, and may add confusion to implementers. >From my perspective telling a reader of a spec that using 303 redirect will require an extra HTTP requests sounds a bit like stating the obvious... Section 2 looks to me clear enough about having two options of connecting WebID and WebID Profile Personally seeing such a strong opposition to this NOTE I don't see strong enough reasons for keeping it in this spec... even more that this opposition comes also from one of a people mentioned in Acknowledgments :) And most of all, *questionable* usefulness of this NOTE, in my eyes really doesn't justify all this negative energy it causes between participants of this group :( ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 18:54:41 UTC