[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Avoid XRI!
Members of the
Eclipse -Paul From: Gabe Wachob
[mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net] I don’t think there is. To the extent
there ever was, we’ve tried very hard to address that uncertainty, and I think
we’ve done a good job. When I see people take swipes at XRI based
on rumors or without citing facts, I call it FUD. That’s what this is.
-Gabe From:
markus.sabadello@gmail.com [mailto:markus.sabadello@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
On 7/26/07, Gabe
Wachob <
gabe.wachob@amsoft.net> wrote: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2007/06/ieee-ic-decentralized-identity-weitzner.html It's
a little disappointing to see FUD like this from Danny Weitzner, but I'm not surprised
the drumbeat is continuing from the W3C… "Finally,
avoid centralized registries. The Web's hallmark is that anyone cancreate a Web
page, without payment, permission, or registration with any centralized entity.
(Of course the Internet depends on the Domain Name System, which ICANN manages,
but this single registry should be enough.) Some have proposed adding a newkind
of URI, called an XRI , to the OpenID standards. XRIs require registration
with a central authority, and the technology comes with a great deal of patent
licensingun certainty. There's no reason to have to register XRIs with a new
ICANN-like entity when we already have enough addressing services on the
Internet to support other kinds of URIs. Such bottlenecks should be avoided at
all costs." |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]