- From: peter williams <home_pw@msn.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:51:53 -0700
- To: "'Henry Story'" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, <jeff@sayremedia.com>
- CC: "'WebID XG'" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
So , its short and pithy. Its not overly biased, and it makes a case. It *does* make me want to know more. I wish it gave me some hints of the answers, just so that as a reviewer I might stack it higher in my choice list - and not be tempted to downgrade it when I read the next submission. It's well written. It makes various claims that are hard to substantiate, but they were not religiously characterized. They were hopeful. It didn't promise the earth, and only once implied that browsers need to have RDF parsers. (That is probably is weakest point, politically, as its walking right into the rats nest of RDF history). I have to leave it to other judgements whether we REALLY need that point. IN my world, that just gives the competing salesman an angle of attack... -----Original Message----- From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry Story Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:25 PM To: jeff@sayremedia.com Cc: WebID XG Subject: Re: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity Ok the latest version of the paper for the W3C Browser workshop has been put up here: http://bblfish.net/tmp/2011/04/20/ It should be an easy and clear read, and essentially make the point to the browser vendors that they need very little effort to make a big difference and solve a big problem. Henry Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 20:52:22 UTC