Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 6/28/12 5:09 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 28/06/2012 08:28, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>> Should acct: be rejected, we can simply use mailto: as per SWD. 
>> Similarly
>> you could simply use ?acct=user@host as has been suggested.
> 
> Since my comments with reviewer hat on have been cited, I feel I should
> summarize my personal feelings about the specification of the acct: scheme.
> 
> *Reviewer hat OFF*
> 
> Roughly, I think the acct: scheme does provide a useful, possibly minor,
> purpose that is not served by other URI schemes, and as such it has
> reasonable claim to meet the bar for registering a new scheme.  But I
> think the description of the acct: scheme in the WebFinger document does
> a poor job of explaining this; i.e. I think there is a document quality
> issue here around the acct: scheme registration/specification.
> 
> I've had private exchanges with one of the document editors, but I don't
> think my suggestions have been reflected in the current draft.  In
> summary, what I think is not as clear as it should be in the scheme
> registration includes:
> * what does an acct URI identify
> * how are acct URIs allocated; what's the assignment delegation structure?
> * how should an acct: URI be dereferenced?  (e.g. if one were used as a
> link in a web page, how should it be handled?).
> 
> I suspect that most of this information can be inferred if one has a
> detailed knowledge of WebFinger protocol, but for an average Joe web
> developer I don't think that's really helpful.
> 
> I don't think this is a sufficiently important issue for me to engage
> more actively with the discussion.

Graham, I think you're right about the fact that these matters are
underspecified. I hereby offer to propose some text, and will do that in
the next few days.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/