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

opening issue-74 - Re: (Dis)Proving that 303s have a performance impact.

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:21:09 +0100
Cc: public-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <6A11240D-71F0-43B7-B5E6-A7F44412CCC2@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 18 Feb 2013, at 17:07, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 2/18/13 10:58 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>> On Mon 2013-Feb-18, at 15:24, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> To advance things, it may  as you suggested previously, Kingsley  put that to a vote, though it is worth noting that when you wrote [2] it wasn't especially clear what should be voted on except the exact words as written by Andrei, which wouldn't have been at all helpful.
> 
> All I wanted was a vote on the notice. Keep it or remove it.

There is a process to get to a vote:

1. raise an issue
2. people discuss it, 
3. if it is felt it is worth it, the issue can get opened
4. This may lead to more discussion and a vote.

Currently you raised ISSUE-74 [1], whose title is the not so clear
"revised WebID definition must be flowed through conceptual spec, 
removing hashURI specificity"

The title is not so clear, but I there is a citation from you
that leads me to think it is related to this issue.

[[
As Kingsley says, "This note is simply unnecessary. All the examples are based on hash URIs (as decided by the WG) which has the desired effect of encouraging the use of hash-based HTTP URIs."
]]

There is no question of voting in that issue.

This Friday we can open the issue, it is on the Agenda.
(Though I think a better title would be helpful)

I think we have had the input from pretty much everybody too on this now.

So I hope we'll see all of you there. 

Henry

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/74
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 16:21:52 UTC

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