On Oct 14, 2011 9:15 AM, "Henry Story" <henry.story@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ok, > > It looks like we have enough implementers and other who like cert:key . I'll replace the cert:public_key with it. > When we have a few implementations we can then remove the "unstable" flags. > > Does someone want to take on the task of rewriting the examples in the spec to use cert:key instead of cert:identity ? I have a branch on github with the inverse cert:identity, just need to update to the new property name. I guess I could commit it right away to the main repo since we have reached consensus now... Steph. > > Henry > > > On 14 Oct 2011, at 14:52, Sergio Fernández wrote: > >> +1 for me as well to cert:key >> >> El 13/10/2011 21:05, "Andrei Sambra" <andrei@fcns.eu> escribió: >>> >>> +1 for me as well. Good, elegant solution. >>> >>> I can't comment on it too much, but I'm trying to follow this topic. >>> >>> Andrei >>> >>> Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 13.10.2011 14:41, Henry Story wrote: >>>> > cert key has my +1 too. >>>> +1 for key:cert >>>> >>>> >>>> Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk >>>> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > > _______________________________________________ > foaf-protocols mailing list > foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org > http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 13:38:45 UTC