- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:42:27 -0500
- To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F0B3513.5090302@openlinksw.com>
On 1/9/12 1:35 PM, Henry Story wrote: > Ok. So now you have two URLs where before we had one. That is why the previous talk about URIs being a luxury does not make sense. Your solution requires more of them. > >>> >> And if it is a URL then why is that not just the place of a WebID then? >> > >> > Because you will ultimately quibble about its complexity. > Why, I have always supported multiple SANs in the certificate. No issue there. > One point re. the above. Imagine the following scenario: I have a sparql construct URL as my address (and compacted using a shortener), and a HTTP URI based Name as the subject Name. Both URIs placed in SAN of my x.509 cert. Would your verifier work? Do you deem this acceptable re. WebID spec as it currently stands? Note: the SPARQL URL resolves to a description graph. The other URI is the Subject described by said graph. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 18:43:24 UTC