- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:09:19 +0200
- To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJnjH5jaqsAMKTXQhHwLF3CJ86FEVZE3hPgec1-tm=V2g@mail.gmail.com>
On 16 June 2014 17:50, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > On 06/16/2014 09:47 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > > As I keep on saying, we have two browsers that have the problem: > > > > 1. Chrome -- it interacts with the keystore via OS provided APIs but > > doesn't emulate Safar or IE re. TLS session handling (they can fix that, > > and they will fix it) > > > > 2. Firefox and Opera -- both of these use their own keystore rather than > > providing an option to work with the native OS keystore via existing > > APIs provided by respective operating systems. > > If that's the only problem, how long do you predict it will take for > WebID+TLS to be widely adopted (by the general Internet public) once > it's fixed? You also indicated before that you think Chrome (Google) > will feel pressure to fix this problem. When do you predict it will be > fixed? > > > > >> > >> Again, this is a subjective statement, but we're saying it because we're > >> not willing to bet our company on the current WebID+TLS login flow > >> (because we think it's too "techy" for the masses and because we don't > >> think browser companies are that interested in fixing the UX for the > >> purposes of WebID+TLS).:) > > > > This isn't about "betting a company" on anything though, its supposed to > > be about constructing a spec where all the key components are loosely > > coupled and based on open standards, without prejudice :-) > > A system that does everything WebID+TLS does *and* doesn't require > browser implementations (to become a popular success) is more loosely > coupled and has less prejudice, IMO. That's the system we're supporting > as an alternative to WebID+TLS. Concepts from WebID (not WebID+TLS) are > included in this alternative, because they don't suffer from the same > issues (tight-coupling w/browser UIs) that WebID+TLS does. > You seem to be betting your company on JSON LD vs Turtle, rather than allowing both. It's a strange bet in that given that you've already written canonicalization algorithms that change JSON into ntriples, which are a form of turtle, I didnt expect it would be a huge undertaking. So now we have a fractured identity space for the moment, the digital bazaar version and the WebID version. It's a pity, but I guess that's just what happens when people take views. It's a bet that could work out, imho. However I've yet to see a profile that is 5 star linked data. That imho is betting against awww, which is almost certain to be a losing bet. I'd definitely like to reuse parts of the technology here, but I'm currently sceptical that this identity solution will scale. I'd like to be proved wrong, tho :) > > > -- > Dave Longley > CTO > Digital Bazaar, Inc. > >
Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 20:09:48 UTC