- From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 06:05:31 +0200
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
On 2014-05-27 03:53, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > > On 26 May 2014 21:33, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-webcrypto-__comments/2014May/0062.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto-comments/2014May/0062.html> > > Quite extreme but maybe a bit fun :-) > > I guess WebID and WebPayments have about the same chance succeeding > given the lack of a *useful* AND *accepted* client authentication system. > > > > Why? For WebPayments it is very easy to explain. None of the existing players like VISA will bother about a system that doesn't offer better security (wrt client-binding) than their existing (provably non-secure) systems. Credit-card payments are essentially at the same level as 20 years ago. For WebID the situation is more unclear since WebID nowadays apparently is mainly characterized as a way of representing data. In spite of that the use of transport-level authentication (WebID-TLS) is *heavily promoted* although transport-level authentication probably accounts for less than 0.001% of all browser-authentications on the web. Although WebID and WebPayments share a common technology ("Linked Data"), the WebPayments CG have *rejected* WebID-TLS due to its awkward UI. I believe the problem boils down to a very basic fact; people are pretty bad cooperating except on smallish issues where "all speak the same language". Unfortunately this leaves the future of the web in the hands of mega-corporations like Google who can launch "the whole thing" without getting stuck in boring and non-constructive discussions like this... Anders > > > Anders > >
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 04:06:05 UTC