On 2 Apr 2008, at 02:14, Peter Ansell wrote: > > On 01/04/2008, Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Story Henry wrote: >> >>> My feeling is that what is needed is to see how this could be made >>> to >>> work better with SSL. >> I've already posted a message suggesting an HTTPS-based solution. >> >> Message-ID: <62649.81.2.120.180.1206622777.squirrel@goddamn.co.uk> >> Subject: Re: [foaf-dev] Re: privacy and open data >> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:59:37 -0000 (UTC) >> >> Summary: >> >> 1. Client requests public FOAF >> 2. FOAF contains rdf:seeAlso with URI for HTTPS private FOAF > > Why does FOAF insist on making things non-specific with seeAlso. That's not FOAF insisting. That was Banjamin insisting. :-) I think clearly specifying some information on the type of resource - is it a RDFAuth_sketch or a OpenId protected endpoint? - makes sense. Furthermore it would allow the two protocols to grow up side by side. Henry > If > you can make up a term that may be more understandable than ideally > you should. Ie, foaf:restrictedVersion or something like that so > someone knows why on earth they are following the URL and what they > should expect to occur after that given their knowledge of the term. > > Peter
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 07:11:50 UTC