Re: [apps-discuss] the need for acct (was: Re: Looking at Webfinger)

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

Yes we do have mailto and xmpp but they conflate a resource with the
action on that resource.

We keep on having to develop all these new identifiers because the old
ones have that conflation. Unfortunately I couldn't get people to
change <a href="mailto:[e-mail]"> into <a
href="acct:[e-mail]" action="mailto"> at the time it
appeared.

Having acct: in there allows the client to offer the default action
that makes sense in the context of that client. For example, a chat
client is probably going to default to trying to set up chat.


On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 7/3/12 8:52 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> The place where I would see acct: being used in WebFinger is actually
>> more the data structures being returned. So for example if I am
>> looking up my friends profile, I would probably want to see their
>> battle.net accounts listed there along with their other stuff.
>>
>> WebFinger would still be a way to resolve acct: URIs, but only one way
>> and the http: transport might only be one option.
>>
>> If I click on an acct: link in a browser I would have a range of
>> possible options:
>>    * Grab the public WebFinger data
>>    * Grab the profile data exposed to me by virtue of me being a friend.
>>    * Attempt to connect on chat
>
> Don't we have xmpp: for that?
>
>>    * Attempt to send an email
>
> Don't we have mailto: for that?
>
> You're saying that acct: would be a general identifier and that
> applications could attempt many different kinds of interactions with
> that account, using specific protocols like SMTP or XMPP. But deciding
> whether to attempt such interactions would depend on knowing if the
> service provider actually offers email service, IM service, public
> profiles, microblogging, etc. Presumably that information could be
> discovered via WebFinger (for a particular account), but I wouldn't
> assume that one can send email to an account simply because an acct: URI
> exists.
>
>> I would expect there to be a default action but that choice is
>> something the user would probably make.
>
> It seems that the default action would be discovery.
>
>> The place I would be using acct: identifiers is in the authentication
>> and authorization layer.
>
> Describing those use cases more completely would help us decide whether
> we really need the 'acct' URI scheme.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/