Re: Reviewing the Solid protocol

> On 6. Apr 2023, at 09:31, Reto Gmür <me@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/29/23 03:19, Gavin Nicol wrote:
>> [...] in the case of Solid (nominally decentralized), it's somewhat questionable why a Pod is necessary, for example.
>> 
> I don't see an issue with the pod. It's something under your control and you could have it on a server on your phone. I'm more worried about the centralized aspects inherited from HTTP, namely PKI and DNS. Writing this I'm wondering if one could use a .onion site for WebId and pod.

Yes, I actually made sure that was added that to the use cases

https://solid.github.io/authorization-panel/authorization-ucr/#uc-limituri

Also I think that is why we need to coin the type of container that solid
mostly uses, which goes beyond ldp: BasicContainer and which I called the
intuitive container in 2013. Perhaps we should simply call those
solid:Container.

https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/50

the high-security scenarios may prefer the basic ldp:BasicContainer served on
onion routers if they don’t even want the hierarchy of the contents to be revealed.
(that the point of the use-case above)

> 
> Greetings!
> 
> Reto
> 
> 

Henry Story

https://co-operating.systems
WhatsApp, Signal, Tel: +33 6 38 32 69 84‬
Twitter: @bblfish
Mastodon: @bblfish@mathstodon.xyz