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

RE: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity

From: peter williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:53:22 -0700
Message-ID: <SNT143-ds107AE083960C4C8067E8EE92960@phx.gbl>
To: <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
CC: <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
I think it would be more useful to state what API changes we would like, so
we could integrate some open source toolkits (to show a profile page, for
the client cert(s) bound to a page, per tab.

If I had a magic lamp, Id rub it, then genie would appear, and Id say:
Genie, genie... expose in the DOM to javascript the SSL session state
information for a current page (so I can write my own demonstration UI by
having javascript write div elements, using opensource javascript
libraries). The second wish would be for the plugin API to be extended,
similarly (so that I can do what other toolbars do today, when I click an
SSO button on the toolbar it does the equivalent of clicking facebook
connect button on a page.

If anyone ever saw the XRI toolbar for Mozilla, I want something similar...
except its tied to the current client cert(s) bound to the tab/page in focus
(and the embedded names, plural, in the cert), rather than an XRI name.

In each case, javascript or plugin, further page javascript can consult the
state, much like some pages auto-invoke a facebook connect assertion once a
toobar has set state and known to have created a facebook [app] session.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Alexandre Passant
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:22 AM
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Cc: jeff@sayremedia.com; Kingsley Idehen; public-xg-webid@w3.org
Subject: Re: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity

<DAC9B75B-77D0-4BBE-96EC-3BFC0A5E9935@bblfish.net> <4DAFF837.3020205@w3.org>
<BANLkTinLLBTaARtae0eeyYJ+OYS+MGn7Rw@m ail.gmail.com>
<SNT143-ds19C9ACB7112101459875E992940@phx.gbl> <4DB2FADB.6000409@openlinksw.
com> <82caa774c884d2224a2c6c4e39eaa9e9.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Return-Path: alexandre.passant@deri.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2011 07:21:43.0439 (UTC)


I think we should mention in the advantages how easy it is to create a
WebID. I added a comment about it on the doc.
Overall, the paper should also mention that WebID is currently worked on in
a W3C XG (listing organisations - that also gives more weight to the
proposal) and should end with a proposal. E.g. WeID XG are happy to work
closely with browser vendors and Webservices developers, providing
opensource toolikts (they should be linked somewhere), etc.

A reference to the FSW XG would also be appropriate 


On 24 Apr 2011, at 00:33, Henry Story wrote:

> 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_UEIuZzZRvPem5cWg1DuC5FqN2DejOB
> YPX_51q7s/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
>>>> 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 Monday, 25 April 2011 10:53:46 UTC

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