Re: (Dis)Proving that 303s have a performance impact.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

> On 2/17/13 4:43 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>
>> 6. Given that WebID isn't making hash-based URIs a MUST (and nor should
>> it, IMHO), and given that the spec shouldn't really require top-to-bottom
>> knowledge of the entire semweb ecosystem, it is entirely sensible and
>> normal to include guidance which explains the above and provides sufficient
>> information to make a decision without acres of research.
>>
> I disagree.
>
> Hopefully, you can understand that sentence.


Kingsley, please try to provide short and concise arguments whenever you
disagree with something. I also have to say that having caught up with the
latest email threads, I find your tone very unprofessional. If there is an
argument you want to put forward, please make it short, concise and
on-topic. Don't spread it over lots of emails, as it becomes increasingly
difficult to keep track. This is just a friendly advice from someone who's
trying to keep up with lots of mailing lists.

Regarding the note in question, I still wholeheartedly believe that
newcomers will have a hard time understanding _why_ we use hash-based URIs.
They may not be interested in the subtleties of linked data, but they might
still want to offer WebIDs to their users.

I really wanted to keep the spec text simple, which is the main reason why
I added the note in the first place, as it avoids having a section just to
explain # URIs vs 303s.

Andrei


>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about>
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen>
>
>
>
>
>
>