- From: Jeff Sayre <jeff@sayremedia.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:54:10 -0700
- To: "Mo McRoberts" <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "WebID XG" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
> On 19 Apr 2011, at 16:08, Henry Story wrote: > >> If people are for that please +1 and I'll add it as an issue. When done >> we can have a vote to open it too, the idea being to look at the spec >> and see how it needs to be rewritten for ftp (and hence made generic >> enough for other existing or yet to be URI schemes) > > > While it's not a terrible proof-of-concept, and this isn't quite what you > asked, it'd get a -1 from me as anything beyond a *pure proof-of-concept* > places a hugely disproportionate burden on server implementors further on > down the line. > > M. > That may be an issue, but Henry was asking a simpler question (which it seems you acknowledged as well). I agreed that it should be added as an issue, that it should be brought up for a vote. That is all. Of course we need to stay narrowly focused at this time, working on our simple proof of concepts and test implementations. We cannot focus on every issue at the same time. Focus requires paying attention to just a few details. So, if this issue is going to distract us from our focus, then we should pass. But, if it is something that people feel should be added as an issue for a vote and later consideration, then I'm for it as it is one of the simpler non-HTTP schemes to address with WebID. Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 15:54:38 UTC