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

[Melvin Carvalho <[e-mail]>]

On 27 June 2012 22:43, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I submitted a query to the uri-review list on June 18. So far, there have
> been no comments on the list.****
>
> ** **
>
> I do not see a reason why the URI review could not be concluded fairly
> quickly regardless of where it is documented.****
>
> ** **
>
> Now, should the URI review process result in rejecting “acct” then we have
> to scramble to come up with an alternative.  It cannot simply be left to
> speculation.  We need a concrete and predictable way of constructing URIs
> that refer to user accounts.  How do I query a Twitter user’s account?
> Flickr? Google+?  (Don’t get me started about the Facebook deciding their
> email address was my preferred email address...)
>

Should acct: be rejected, we can simply use mailto: as per SWD.  Similarly
you could simply use ?acct=user@host as has been suggested.  This would
possibly be an improvement in any case.  acct: is a 'nice to have' but not
necessary for a discovery protocol, imho.  It's a slight weakness of XRD
that it doesnt have a query language (like SPARQL) that makes things more
challenging.  Perhaps one day it will have.  Nevertheless, SWD has proven
that the problem CAN be solved without a new uri scheme.

Twitter, Facebook, Flikr and Google Plus all use HTTP URIs to describe
their user accounts.  This is best practice on the web, and recommended in
Linked Data Principles [1] which is the dominant discovery mechanism on the
Web today.  The gap in linked data, which I hope Webfinger can address, is
a common discovery pattern (using well-known locations) for email
addresses.  If Twitter or Facebook and others have not asked for yet
another way to identify users, I am unsure why this use case is in scope.
Do note that Facebook already have a first class discovery system in the
Open Graph Protocol.

I believe they say in the IETF, "A spec is not finished when there's
nothing left to put in, a spec is finished when there's nothing left to
take out."  If acct: was rejected or removed, I think we have a ways to
fallback, in fact, I think WebFinger would be a stronger specification for
it.

[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:
> [e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Mike Jones
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:18 AM
> *To:* William Mills; Melvin Carvalho; Murray S. Kucherawy
>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, there’s a significant advantage.  It allows the acct: scheme to be
> approved (or rejected) quickly so that we will know whether it is safe for
> WebFinger and other specifications to use it.  That approval/rejection can
> then happen in parallel with refining the discovery specification.****
>
> ** **
>
> Otherwise, we could be in a position where we think we have a final
> discovery specification, only to learn that it can’t go forward because of
> objections to the acct: scheme from the W3C and possibly others.  It would
> be much better for us to know whether that is the case up front.****
>
> ** **
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* William Mills [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:07 AM
> *To:* Mike Jones; Melvin Carvalho; Murray S. Kucherawy
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question****
>
> ** **
>
> Is there any advantage to breaking it out?  The WF draft depends on it and
> so can't finalize until acct: does, right?****
>
> ** **
>
> Will one get done more quickly than the other?****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Mike Jones <[e-mail]>
> *To:* Melvin Carvalho <[e-mail]>; Murray S. Kucherawy <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:20 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, I believe that the acct: scheme should be considered separately from
> discovery, in its own document.****
>
>  ****
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Melvin Carvalho
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:06 AM
> *To:* Murray S. Kucherawy
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On 22 May 2012 09:22, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]> wrote:****
>
> As we prepare to bring webfinger into appsawg, it looks a lot like there’s
> substantial discussion just on the point of the proposed “acct:” scheme.**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> So, a question for those tracking the discussion:  Is this a big enough
> topic that it should be split into its own document?  This would be a
> useful thing to decide as we figure out how to handle the work once it
> enters working group mode.****
>
>  ****
>
> (This by itself has me wondering if we should revisit the conversation
> about whether webfinger needs its own working group, but I’ll leave it to
> Barry and Pete to make that call.)****
>
>
> There has been some discussion of this here and on other lists, and the
> consensus I think is for people to follow the process at :
>
> <[e-mail]>.
>
> I think the current state of play is that webfinger can be used with any
> URI type e.g. mailto: http: acct: etc. acct: is recommended in the RFC.  *
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> -MSK****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss****
>
>