- From: Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:14:07 +0100
- To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
- Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
Hi all,
> [...] you want to take a protocol that follows the
> architecture of the WWW and implements content negotiation, and change
> it to contain the anti-pattern of canonical representation, which will
> impact all implementations across the board.
As of today [1], WebID does not *require* content negotiation. In my opinion,
this is a good thing. We disagree, and that's fine, but I hope we can agree
that I am not the one arguing for change, here.
I may even agree on the fact that canonical representation is an anti-pattern
but convenience and practicality often come at the expense of formal rigour.
I think a hallmark of good engineering is to find the tradeoff that best serves
all interested parties. I am not arrogant enough to claim that I am a good
engineer and that my tradeoffs are the best ones, that is for others to say,
but I do want WebID to succeed and insofar as my experience goes, hard
requirements for conneg and/or full JSON-LD parsing would damage any chance it
might have.
> So essentially because of limitations of your programming
> platform/language,
Yes, of course. Specifications should never be designed in a vacuum. Working
with a spec that can be easily implemented in only two languages is a really
bad business decision if one is looking for long-term interoperability.
[1]: Drafts or not, in the absence of anything else those documents act as the
current WebID spec for all practical purposes.
Best regards,
Jacopo.
Received on Monday, 24 January 2022 14:14:23 UTC