Re: self-signed

On 19 Apr 2011, at 13:05, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 4/19/11 3:36 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2011, at 01:43, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> 
>>>> You're saying “WebID should support more than just http URIs”
>>>> 
>>> It shouldn't be scheme specific in any shape or form.
>> Okay, I have a practical problem with this as written: how do I implement a WebID relying party which doesn't restrict itself to certain schemes?
> 
> Relying party needs to treat WebID as a protocol comprised of:
> 
> 1. URIs for Agent Identity (Names)
> 2. Protocol for validating Agent Identity.
> 
> A URI is scheme agnostic. The fact that HTTP can be used as Name/Access mechanism doesn't imply this capability is unique to HTTP. You can make other URIs resolve.

Yes, but you still need to have that code which knows *how*.

There is no double-standard in saying “I wish to implement a WebID server which won't confuse people by only supporting half of the schemes they expect. What do I need to support?”, nor in providing the answers to that question.


-- 
Mo McRoberts - Data Analyst - Digital Public Space,
Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
Room 7066, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key 0x663E2B4A


http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 12:12:10 UTC