Re: How To Handle WebIDs for (X)HTML based Claim Bearing Resources

On 30 Dec 2011, at 22:28, Peter Williams wrote:

> The foreseeable future is the caveat - and is fine (and traditional) in identity for content class resources

Ah, perhaps, but the semantics of “your WebID URI changing” haven't really been defined yet — if your key persists but your URI changes, what happens? Does the same apply when you lose all access to the old URI? How do you do 'rollover'? What happens when you can't re-use the key to generate a new cert with the new URI? For some classes of application none of this poses much of a problem, but as soon as you start associating persistent information within those applications with those identities, there's something which has to be figured out. (Of course, there are situations where you *want* to have a completely distinct digital identity, but that doesn't mean you should be forced to…)

> The uk does better than others in official naming. You can go to court and be referred to as your pseudo official nom de plume, street alias, customary monicker.

You don’t even have to go to court.  Scottish law is slightly different to the rest, but in Scotland you just pick a name and start using it — the law covers “intent to defraud”, but that’s about it. In the rest of the UK, I believe there’s a bit of paperwork and then much the same.

(This was one of my big bugbears with Google+'s real name policy, aside from being clearly impractical to enforce --


Mo McRoberts - Technical Lead - The Space,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E,
Project Office: Room 7083, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ

Received on Saturday, 31 December 2011 00:22:17 UTC