- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:01:26 +0100
- To: peter williams <home_pw@msn.com>
- CC: 'Henry Story' <henry.story@bblfish.net>, public-xg-webid@w3.org
peter williams wrote: > I don't care which non https scheme is chosen. It's *any* that goes beyond > the presumptions of the very pure web architecture, and shows we can deal > with the cruddy web (out there), as the platform goes mainstream. well, that I can +1 for sure. To be clear, I'm all for URIs being URIs and webid not trying to constrain to a specific scheme (or two), there's no reason to constrain it at all. This touches on what I was pushing a year or so ago, an abstract webid protocol, then mappings to common technologies, and one typical defacto one to get interop going from the get go. I'm all for focussing now, but certainly not for limiting future transport support or unexpected reuse of what we're doing here. best, nathan
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 19:02:17 UTC