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

ISSUE-55: WebID schema agnosticims

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:31:45 +0200
Cc: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <D4B065F9-3CE3-476E-8BDD-E7EF1CDBDA51@bblfish.net>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

On 19 Apr 2011, at 23:17, Dan Brickley wrote:

>> 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] ...?

Agree on this.

I think we have finally found a real solid use case for
ISSUE-1: Multiple URI entries in the SAN extension

A good Certificate provider should put a WebID using the most widely deployed scheme available, whenever thinking of using a less well known scheme. That way older servers will have the chance to authenticate the person as well as any newer ones that can use the new schemes 


(I know I was meant to go to bed a while ago, but somehow...)

Social Web Architect
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 21:32:17 UTC

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