- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:26:20 +0200
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>, WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
On 14 Apr 2011, at 18:03, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 14 Apr 2011, at 17:41, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> >>>> (I generated the page from the second tab of http://x509.me >>>> The test a certificate option. My cert was generated of the first page (optional). My cert had a SAN pointing to a blank page to start with. Press the test button on the second tab. It fails as it was a blank page and spits out the rdfa required for it to pass. Cut, copy, paste.) >>>> >>> I just tested the service above. >>> >>> Results: >>> >>> 1. HTTP scheme WebIDs - Pass >>> 2. Non HTTP scheme WebIDs - Fail . >>> >>> WebID is not about HTTP scheme WebIDs, solely. Courtesy of WWW ubiquity, HTTP scheme WebIDs are a very cost-effective *option*. Important downside: they are unintuitive. [WebId's are no less unintuitive that webfinger, not when they are hidden in a certificate. In both cases point an click a cert selector and you are done. But let's discuss that another time.] >>> Basically, the problem addressed by WebFinger and Fingerpoint. Thus, we must stick to URI scheme agnosticism re WebID verification. >> yes, but not everybody has time to implement all the other schemes, which have not yet undergone the same level of scrutiny. Let us get the test cases and documentation for https webid's under our belt, then we can move to the other schemes. > > Henry, > > You know that comment above just isn't right. How? Many of us have not had time to implement other schemes than https, and even for https webids we don't have good test cases yet where we can clearly affirm we are all compatible. This is very clear from the e-mail on this list recently to do with issues on X509 certificates, issues on profiles, and so on. > You're making an excuse for specificity that's tainting the job at hand, potentially. Of course, if WebID == HTTP scheme based Agent URIs, solely then fine, let's be very clear and upfront about it from the onset. We don't close any doors, you know that. But this is a W3C group here. We should have a spec written out clearly with test cases so that people can claim to implement it, otherwise it's just hot air. Given that we have to start off somewhere let's do what we have the most implementations for, which is https. As soon as we have that we can move to the next issues. This should not take so long to do. It's just a bit tedious. It'll get faster as soon as we are done. > > The path to NetID is a no-brainer for me if we want to play around with labels, syntax, and semantics :-) I am not restricting how webid works. Just what we can concentrate on first. Don't forget how this thread started. You were telling Akbar Hossain off for only supporting only one scheme. I think Akbar having done openid4.me is very aware that other protocols have their role to play. > Why do you think we're spending time on all of these protocols? We have been talking a lot and working at the human knowledge level. Now we need to automate these tests, so that we can move onto other topics - such as webfinger for example. Henry > > > Kingsley >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Kingsley Idehen >>> President& CEO >>> OpenLink Software >>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >> > > > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > President& CEO > OpenLink Software > Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen > > > > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 16:26:56 UTC