- From: peter williams <home_pw@msn.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:56:08 -0700
- To: "'Henry Story'" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, <jeff@sayremedia.com>
- CC: "'Kingsley Idehen'" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
We distinguish between web and webby here. Remember, webby means the TAG-authorized architecture - a set of design principles. Using a windows web service to mint or reissue a cert is "not webby" (though obviously web), since a "true" webby solution would use the HTML5 keygen tag. That keygen tag is crap at the issues of renewal/reissuance is ... besides the point (in very pure webby circles). Its canon. What I want to hear (for our sakes) is that we can give on the webbiness, rather more than some of our rhetoric (here, said semi-privately). I don't want to alienate NSA/DoD, say, who do NOT use HTML5 keygen tag when issuing browsers certs (even though they use Mozilla a lot); and they NEVER will. I don't want them to feel they could never be an adoption community....because the very purity of the webbiness becomes a barrier. Those guys a VERY good security engineers, and they ONLY adopt if their use cases have really "internalized" the architecture of the standard - which thus has to mesh with their basic operational environments. If we start with a clash, this can never happen - since they use high assurance engineering methods. -----Original Message----- From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry Story Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 3:34 PM To: jeff@sayremedia.com Cc: Kingsley Idehen; public-xg-webid@w3.org Subject: Re: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity Agree on all below. The version I was editing is here, if it makes it easier to see the diffs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YMY_UEIuZzZRvPem5cWg1DuC5FqN2DejOBYPX_51 q7s/edit?hl=en&authkey=CI7q4cIC Henry 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 http://bblfish.net/
Received on Saturday, 23 April 2011 23:56:35 UTC