W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > April 2011

RE: ftp scheme

From: peter williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:27:02 -0700
Message-ID: <SNT143-ds1054069EFCF18698CD948D92900@phx.gbl>
To: "'Mo McRoberts'" <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>, "'Henry Story'" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: "'WebID XG'" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
That's correct, we are baking into the infrastructure need to deal with
multiple URI scheme, some of which not everyone will accept.

This is variant of the current requirement, that says that some of the
http/https URI in the SAN/IAN list you will refuse to process, too. You may
refuse http URIs, for example (since its such an insecure version of webid).
You will no doubt refuse those https URI that use root certs that are
unlawful in your country (but not mine) : e.g. using Cuban roots in the US
will get you into trouble. In the UK, those https URI are fine (since the
roots are lawful, and I don't see why UK folks should be limited to policy
US imposes on its peoples when dealing with a Cuba server cert CA).

These are the issues that help us test whether webid is the fodder for a few
scripters, or it goes into mainstream platform engineering. Scripting
doesn't need higher class of engineering, rextricted to servers general, not
a billion PC installs. If we are still at the scripting phase, then the
platform engineers will just stay away (for another 3....5 years). This
means I stay away  from adoption - since its "just research". The firm I
contribute to only deals with things ABOUT to go mass market, and when at
commodity price (which I was hoping was true for foaf cards). This is when
we intersect the tech curve - which may be very different point to others,
here, more interested in tooling.


"Please note that the Peter prohibits monitoring of e-mails sent or
Further communication will signify your consent to this.". 


-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:38 AM
To: Henry Story
Cc: WebID XG
Subject: Re: ftp scheme

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.

Baking FTP into things means that certs can be generated with FTP URIs,
which in turn means that servers need to support it, because otherwise
people will have WebID certs which can't be used on some WebID sites.

(And, HTTP with its single outgoing TCP/IP connection is a damned sight
easier to implement a client for in a Web server sitting behind a firewall
than FTP is).


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

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 16:27:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:44 UTC