Re: Unblocking WebID CG work items

út 11. 7. 2023 v 0:04 odesílatel Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
napsal:

>
> I’d like to point out Nathan’s proposal of superset and subset
> specifications [2], which (IMHO) stands a very good chance of gathering
> even more consensus than TallTed’s successful proposal [1].
> Although different in nature, Nathan’s proposal effectively converges
> towards a similar set of compromises: no mandatory conneg, support for
> json-ld and html formats, no MUST on any specific format.
>
> As Henry pointed out, I did close my own PR as I am unable to break down
> significant centers of consensus such as these into independent,
> micro-sized PRs. Not only I am unable to but I am very skeptical it can be
> done at all, although I’d be very happy if someone were to prove me wrong.
> Nonetheless, we have two proposals that a lot of us - dare I say most of
> us? - could stand behind. There clearly is consensus if one is willing to
> look for it and embrace a little compromise.
>
> Henry, I do not share your perspective that sees this group having made
> progress in the past year(s). While it is irrefutable that some changes
> were made, I can’t see any of these having put us any closer to a final
> draft. I don’t think we’d be contemplating handing over to the Solid WG if
> this wasn’t the case.
>

I liked TallTed's proposal, but Nathan's is even better, because it covers
what everyone wants, caters for the self hosted use case, and has imho the
greatest path to mass adoption.

I would be keen to hear TallTed's thoughts.

I'd be happy to work on this proposal independent of what solid wants to
do.  I suspect this would play well with Solid too.

I believe we can make progress via lazy consensus.


>
> [1]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/3#issuecomment-1051064330
> [2]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jul/0056.html
>
>
>