Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

Thomas,

Can the test suite be run on different implementations? What are the hooks?

Do we even have a list of WebID-TLS implementations?

I think it would be useful to see how many compliant implementations we
have (possibly none), and then discuss the concrete non-compliance issues
instead of abstract and vague proposals.

Martynas

On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 at 19.52, bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
>