Re: Documenting implicit assumptions?

Peter Williams wrote:
> I look at FOAF+SSL as the thing one had to do to get to this stage - recognition of the validity of the "idea" by a more formal body with lots more reach. Its not the output of the process, however (and renaming FOAF+SSL to webid protocol is not enough). This process's output must be one of incubation, and may well be quite distinct from the "founding" "ideas" that formed the group's motivating input. if webid protocol looks nothing like FOAF+SSL at the end of the day, I could not care less. What I recognize in Henry's original case , 3 years ago or more, was the story and the opportunity. There was a clarity of rationale, and it felt good (compared to the faffiness of the openid auth protocol)

exactly, FOAF+SSL deserves due recognition, as does Henry (and all 
involved), but that's the tech/prototype that got us to where we are 
today, and doesn't reflect where we'll be tomorrow or at the end of 
this process.

> Get this right and browser makers and server makers will happily completely rewrite their SSL and https libraries - and then fasihon viable migration strategies for the older stuff. They already do it every 4-5 years anyways, just to combat architectural rot.

and that's the goal, a well defined, accepted, widely implemented, web 
identity solution - anything less and we'll have failed.



Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 17:10:14 UTC