[foaf-protocols] First WebID Teleconference minutes (July 27th 2010)
russell.seth at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 21:59:46 CEST 2010
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho at gmail.com>wrote:
> On 2 August 2010 21:30, Seth Russell <russell.seth at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The human readable part of the WebID *is* an *essential* component of the
>> thing. Without that essential component it is not a real WebID. We
>> certainly can put in some minimal wording about partial compliance, so that
>> if some hacker wants to implement something for a shortcut, that is fine,
>> this specification will not stand in her way, or make her life harder. But
>> she should be aware that she is not making a real fully compliant WebID.
> Can you explain why you consider this essential?
Because without that essential element i do not think people will want to
use it. Without people wanting to use it, like Henry said, it will be
slower to be taken up. If you keep just designing the ultimate system for
hackers to play with, then this identifying system will never become main
stream. For this to become main stream, it is essential that people can
actually see something there that they understand. if you don't care
whether it ever becomes main stream, then, yes it is not essential. Me, i
want this to be successful and i don't want to even bother developing for it
unless i can believe that it will be successful.
> Do you consider (X)HTML human readable?
Well Kingsley said it better than i did, but i said it without any semantic
confusion in my original message: "if a person hits one of those WebID's
with their browser, not knowing anything about content negoition, that the
WewID URL [should] respond with a profile in a human friendly way ".
Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth
Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell
Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com
Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the foaf-protocols