davewiner

They tell us to worry about man-in-the-middle attacks that might modify content, but fail to mention that they can do it in the browser, even if you use a "secure" protocol. They are the one entity you must trust above all. No way around it.

Comment · 3 years ago

You should try Caddy -- it's even easier.

Comment · 3 years ago

Haha perfect demo! ;-)

Comment · 3 years ago

They're breaking the web. That's the point.

All other arguments you're presenting about HTTPS being easy (it is, have you tried Caddy) are moot. It's the sites that were made before Google took over control that aren't maintained that are at issue. And the idea that a for-profit company that no one should trust is saying they're the only ones you have to trust.

And the fact that many of us adopted the web because it was a platform that no company controlled. If it had been presented as Google's platform I would have run the other way and would have advised you to do the same. But now I'm invested. My freedom as a developer depends on the integrity of the web. And a web controlled by Google isn't the web.

Google has a nasty habit of taking control of open protocols and then trashing them.

Roll up your sleeves, make some quiet time and actually READ THE DOCUMENT.

http://this.how/googleAndHttp

Breaking the web is the issue folks.

Comment · 3 years ago

http://this.how/googleAndHttp

Comment · 3 years ago

i doubt if it will come to a DMCA takedown but that is a creative an interesting idea!

maybe someone else could post an issue to their repo. but as the author of the spec i really shouldn't have to do anything to get an esteemed organization like the W3C to respect a CC license and copyright.

Comment · 3 years ago

my perspective is that my name and copyright were removed from a document i wrote and re-published on the W3C site and that should be fixed. please don't speak for me. thanks.

Comment · 3 years ago

of course any document can go missing, but the RSS 2.0 spec has been at that location for 20+ years and was put there specifically to preserve it over time.

and of course it's no excuse for ignoring a copyright notice and removing authorship credit.

and if harvard's website should disappear then grab a copy from archive.org. or use the github repo we created for the spec.

there are lots of backups of that spec. it would be hard to lose it. ;-)

Comment · 4 years ago

I wrote a post about this thread. I am the author of the XML-RPC spec and co-designer of the format.

http://scripting.com/2022/07/16.html#a172934