Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

There is a test suite that covers WebID-TLS. Probably would need an 
update to work with the latest JRE and libs, but it did's job when it 
was written.

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/rev/98f652d92840

Am 01.11.23 um 23:02 schrieb Martynas Jusevičius:
> IMO the most meaningful contribution to the WebID effort would be a
> test suite. It should cover WebID-TLS as well.
> 
> I don't have much problem with the
> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/ documents. I think they
> should only be modified when the tests uncover an explicit error or
> ambiguity.
> 
> LinkedDataHub includes a test for WebID delegation, for example:
> https://github.com/AtomGraph/LinkedDataHub/blob/master/http-tests/misc/webid-delegation.sh
> 
> Martynas
> atomgraph.com
> 
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 10:16 PM Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Group
>>
>> I trust this message finds you well.
>>
>> Over the last couple of days in Solid CG we have been discussing the possibility of a "Solid-Lite" spec.
>>
>> I have begun drafting it, but there's two remaining sections that I need to complete.
>>
>> 1. A lite WebID profile
>> 2. A lite authentication method for said profile
>>
>> Considering recent events, it's entirely understandable if the group feels hesitant to pursue the WebID Specs further. I've made an effort to capture our previous discussions and integrated aspects from Nathan's superset/subset proposal, which you can review here:
>>
>> https://github.com/webidcg/draft-spec
>>
>> So I was wondering if there is an appetite to carry on working, or to call it a day.  We dont have a chair but we were operating via Jacopo's proposal of lazy consensus.
>>
>> We could use that system to decide whether or not to close the group.
>>
>> Or to carry on and complete Nathan's suggestion.
>>
>> Does anyone have thoughts on this?
>>
>> With deepest sympathy and respect,
>> Melvin
>

Received on Sunday, 5 November 2023 18:53:03 UTC