On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote: > On 11/15/12 11:40 AM, Andrei SAMBRA wrote: > > >> Restricting ourselves to http, https URLs does make for a clearer spec, >> without >> creating interoperability issues. I can see that ftp and ftps would also >> work, but >> we would certainly have a more testable system if we limited ourselves at >> first. >> > +1 > We should remember that WebID is a _W3C_ group, not an IETF one. > > So you infer that URIs belong to IETF and URLs to the W3C? At the same > time you assume this is architecture with real interoperability in mind. > > You are making an important point here, quite profound. I really need to > know if this is the view shared by others. > > The most powerful virtue of the Web is its interoperability. That virtue > is inextricably linked to URI abstraction. > No, my point is that WebID URIs use HTTP(S) schemes. The point is to avoid ftp:// WebIDs (or any other scheme) in order to simplify the spec. Andrei > -- > > 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 > > > >
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 17:15:45 UTC