Re: [apps-discuss] using the name "simple web discovery" to replace the name "webfinger"?

I oppose changing the name. We've been talking about WebFinger for many
years now and much context and history would be lost if the name changed.
The SWD stuff is a relative newcomer not to mention a fairly vague name. I
see no value in changing the name -- only downsides.

bob wyman

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>wrote:

> The webfinger spec
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-05 ) and the
> simple web discovery spec
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-simple-web-discovery-02 ) are
> being merged into one thing.
>
> We need a name to refer to the result of this merge. This means we
> need to pick one of the names to go forward with, and deprecate the
> other name, or pick a new name altogether and deprecate both current
> names.
>
> I think currently 'bare user@host vs acct:user@host' and 'xml or json
> vs only json' are two points that still need to be resolved before the
> merge is complete, right? Anyway, that's not the topic of this thread
> - let's just suppose a consensus will be reached, and the specs will
> be merged.
>
> Then, I think Blaine Cook, Paul Jones and Mike Jones have all
> indicated in previous threads that they are open to picking 'simple
> web discovery' as the new name.
>
> FWIW, i personally am the kind of person who enjoys giving nice names
> to things, and i particularly enjoy saying 'webfinger' because it's
> more creative, less boring, and funnier as a name. Also, to me it
> makes perfect sense that it's "finger for the web". However, in my
> experience explaining to people that remoteStorage
> (http://www.w3.org/community/unhosted/wiki/RemoteStorage ) combines
> XHR with CORS, OAuth and webfinger, people usually know what XHR is
> (especially if i call it AJAX), 50% know what OAuth is, and for CORS
> the face i get from them is 'oh that must be some sort of special
> mechanism'.
>
> The face i sometimes (not always) get for webfinger is 'huh? is that a
> real thing?'. :) also, when i do explain webfinger to people, unless
> they look like old school finger users, i tell them it is 'a simple
> mechanism for  discovering service on the web'. So it is my opinion
> that 'simple web discovery' would be a (more boring, but) better name
> than 'webfinger'. A downside would be that we need to update it
> everywhere, but i guess we can get over that.
>
> maybe other people have other experiences or insights about this name
> choice?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Michiel
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>