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

Re: Browser ID

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:56:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM=Pv=RNSzjkc+a_E28E6_+bcfWah8o7xiXOQmgoojgTLyYyUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
On 15 July 2011 18:46, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> On 7/15/11 1:47 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> Remember, WebID is URI rather than HTTP URI based. It too works fine
>> with mailto: scheme URIs.
> Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem we're trying to solve.
> We see web sites asking for email addresses. Even after you do OpenID, they
> want an email address. We see users understanding quite well that emails
> represent personas. They have their work email, and their home email.
> So, we want to build a protocol where web sites *always* get a valid email
> address. Not a URI that could be an email address.

Nice work Ben, but...

Ok, email seems fine as a lowest common denominator, but that does
seem rather to neglect the huge advantage that the Web offers - a HTTP
URI can effectively provide any information you like (including email
address in, say, a FOAF or XFN profile).

So far I've barely glanced at the docs, but I get the impression that
the email address will be passed around in a little bundle of JSON. So
while using URIs (including mailto:) would strike me as the neatest
approach, would it hurt to add another field for a profile URI?

Whatever, some kind of convergence/compatibility between BrowserID and
WebID seems very desirable.


Received on Friday, 15 July 2011 22:54:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:45 UTC