Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger & acct: draft

[Blaine Cook <[e-mail]>]

2011/11/19 "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <[e-mail]>

>  19.11.2011 8:58, Blaine Cook wrote:
>
> +1; defining the actual link relations should be done outside the
> webfinger spec, most likely as part of RFC 5988 as Paul mentioned.
>
>  The relations are perhaps the trickiest bit of webfinger to standardise,
> but thankfully 5988 offers guidance; new relations should be defined as
> specifically as possible, with obvious relation overlap being aggregated
> into more general identifiers, and eventually being submitted to the
> registry once sufficient deployment mandates it.
>
>
> How many of them will we have to define?  Can we at all predict how will
> Webfinger be used?
>

We don't know, and no. :-)

We can make educated guesses, but it would be folly to start defining
shared, generic terminology before implementation. The XMPP specs are a
great example of too much definition stifling actual implementations from
growing and evolving.

b.