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

Re: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:33:41 +0200
Cc: "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <9AE6E32B-F6B2-4399-B5A3-E1930ED81116@bblfish.net>
To: jeff@sayremedia.com
Agree on all below.

The version I was editing is here, if it makes it easier to see the diffs:



On 24 Apr 2011, at 00:29, Jeff Sayre wrote:

>>> On 23 Apr 2011, at 19:08, Jeff Sayre wrote:
>>>> Thus, WebID is not just for the Web.
>> On 23 Apr 2011, at 1:21 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>> Agree, but one should pause at the word "just" here. It makes me wonder:
>>> what else do we have that is bigger? It's a bit like saying Bill Gates
> is just
>>> rich....
> Removing 'just' from my sentence would not make any sense. The point is
> that WebID has a practical role beyond the Web (big W). The Internet is
> bigger than the Web platform. Non-webby protocols can harness the power of
> WebID.
>>> Anyway, when talking to browser vendors and builders, one should presume
>>> that their
>>> interest lies focused in the space just encompassed by this technology.
>>> :-)
> Of course. The workshop is targeting browser vendors. Therefore, the
> browser-based Internet. As I've said several times before in this thread,
> our position paper thus needs to be Web (big W) focused.
> I assumed Kingsley was making a larger point and not referring
> specifically to our position paper. That is the downside to threaded email
> discussions that tend to snake around, periodically going off topic a bit.
> It can sometimes be hard to know what topic is being discussed. :)
> BTW, why have we stopped using Google Docs? I assumed that you were just
> exporting an HTML version for people's reference and that we would
> continue our edits in Google Docs. It is impossible for anyone else to
> make corrections to the document in its present format.
> I would say that at this stage, with the exception of a few edits and
> proofreading corrections, we are beginning to nitpick with the paper's
> details. Remember, *all* this paper needs to do is earn us a presentation
> invite. It does not need to be perfect in all respects with regards to
> describing WebID. We can go into more detail, be more precise, or paint a
> bigger picture in our 20-minute talk.
> Jeff

Social Web Architect
Received on Saturday, 23 April 2011 22:34:11 UTC

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