- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:17:46 +0200
- To: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 19 April 2011 23:01, Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > On 19 Apr 2011, at 21:49, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >> On 4/19/11 4:14 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote: >>> You yourself gave a key example of this right at the beginning of the >>> thread: you had certificates >>> with unsupported schemes, and they didn't work. You were confused as a >>> result, and thought there >>> was a bug. You're a smart, experienced, technically-savvy user how's >>> my grandmother going >>> to cope with that situation? > >> Which is why implementers should deliver clear messages when they hit >> faults related to a URI that >> serve as WebID in a Cert.. That's basically the essence of the matter. >> This issue is a few steps away >> from grandma as she shouldn't really care about such details. Not caring >> doesn't mean HTTP scheme >> specificity couldn't adversely affect her ability to control her own >> vulnerability (privacy) in cyberspace, >> at the very least. > > Okay then excuse my ignorance please outline to me, how _exactly_ it > will work when: > > a) Grandma has a "WebID" certificate containing only a SAN with a mailto: > URI > > and > > b) the server (with a "Log in with your WebID! button) only supports http: > and https: URIs > > What *exactly* do you think should happen in this instance? It shouldn't come to that. Where did Grandma get her mailto:-based WebID? Can we discourage the provider from this practice without saying "it's not WebID"? Can we write the spec in a way that discourages people from pushing out such things to non-technical users before there are enough consumers? Some version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle "Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." So consumers MUST understand http/https, MAY understand others; publishers/providers SHOULD [your words here] ...? Dan
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 21:18:14 UTC