Re: [apps-discuss] The webfinger and the acct: scheme documents

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> FWIW, I authored a separate spec for the 'acct' URI scheme because I
> understood from the list discussion that the 'acct' URI *could* be used
> by protocols other than WebFinger. If that is true, then it seems to me
> preferable to work on the WebFinger protocol and the 'acct' URI scheme
> as separate documents. If that is false, then I think they belong in the
> same specification. Personally I'm unclear as to whether the 'acct' URI
> scheme is tightly coupled to WebFinger protocol, so I think we need to
> figure that out first before deciding whether to proceed with two
> documents or one.

I think it's important to keep the "acct" definition, if we retain it,
as a separate document.  As Nat points out, it's useful for
referencing the URI scheme separately.  We've had problems in the past
where something that we thought to be part of a protocol wound up, a
few years later, as having other uses.  It meant that other protocol
had a normative reference to a protocol they had nothing to do with,
only for the purpose of referring to that one useful feature.

Separating it into its own document has also focused discussion on
issues specific to the URI scheme, rather than diluting things by
putting it in as a short section in another document.

As the AD who will be responsible for these documents, I strongly urge
y'all to leave the "acct" specification as a separate document.

Barry