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

Re: self-signed

From: Jeff Sayre <jeff@sayremedia.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:58:46 -0700
Message-ID: <4a94481351896f2ceda3a86d890f88c9.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Nathan wrote:
>...precluding all schemes bar one really isn't a wise
> move, even just for the sake of future proofing the thing!

To date I have not commented on many of the issues presented to this IG as
it seems often the case, that with hotly-debated topics, given enough time
the issue comes full circle and previously-discussed details get forgotten
or washed over.

Henry has been very clear on at least four (4) occasions that the WebID
spec will not be single-scheme focused. It will not be HTTP-scheme





What he has said is that it makes sense to focus first on one task.
Quoting Henry, "Let us get the test cases and documentation for https
webid's under our belt, then we can move to the other schemes."

It does not get anymore clear than that.

Let's focus on the first task. Once we've adequately tested https WebIDs
and feel comfortable with what we've learned, we can move on to another

I'm not sure how many of you have the privilege to work on open standards
during company time (in other words, your company lets you "freely" work
on Web standards during company time), but some of us volunteer our time.
We are off the clock. We do not earn a paycheck for the time spent on this
IG, any other IG, or any other open source projects. Our time is very
limited and comes out of our personal free time.

For those of you who know me, I'm all for vigorous debate--when it is
productive. But this large animal has been beaten to death. If we cannot
settle on a clear, well-defined plan of action, then my time and yours is
being wasted.


> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> Not knowing how to deal with URI type (scheme) != a valid or invalid
>> WebID. Today, code is emerging that takes the view that WebIDs that
>> aren't HTTP scheme based == invalid.
> That's a very valid point, mapping to well defined protocols and
> encouraging (or expecting) their use is one thing, but precluding all
> schemes bar one really isn't a wise move, even just for the sake of
> future proofing the thing!
> Fully agree w/ the approach you outline above kinglsey, if you don't
> understand the scheme you simply don't know if it's a webid, nothing
> more, nothing less.
> Best,
> Nathan
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 19:59:40 UTC

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