[apps-discuss] R: draft-wilde-profile-link-01 published

[Goix Laurent Walter <[e-mail]>]

Hello erik,
[snip]
>
> > Thanks for the update.
> > Such types of link have also been widely used for years together with
> the webfinger specification (usually under the
> http://webfinger.net/rel/profile-page rel type for html profile
> pointers) so I would suppose it will also relate to the wf/swd
> discussion and that ultimately this draft becomes compatible with the
> discovery solution ultimately specified. It may be worth adding it as
> an example.
>
> thanks for the pointer to web finger. i am sure there are quite a
> number
> of other formats out there using html profiles, maybe it would be
> interesting to create a small list of "well-known" profiles.
[walter] some work in that direction has been already recorded here [1] that you may want to check

>
> > I would also suggest to emphasize the usage on the "type" attribute
> together with this link rel to better characterize the type of
> information a client should expect. Indeed I would expect in some cases
> more than one of such "profile" link rel to be published within the
> same document, and the type may be useful for this. E.g. so far in wf
> the http://webfinger.net/rel/profile-page and
> http://microformats.org/profile/hcard (and to some extent the
> http://portablecontacts.net/spec/1.0#me) rel types are widely used to
> discriminate the expect type of "profile" format/info accessible. It
> would be valuable to maintain such flexibility.
>
> while i think that the "type" idea is interesting, i am confused that
> you suggest http://microformats.org/profile/hcard as such a type.
> afaict, hCard is a specific profile and does not define a format for
> describing profiles. i would expect types to define a framework that
> could be used to define specific profiles, but maybe we have a
> different
> idea of what a "type" attribute could do? could you explain why you
> consider http://microformats.org/profile/hcard to be a type instead of
> a
> specific profile?
[walter] maybe i wasn't clear enough I apologize. I was indeed referring to the "type" attribute/parameter of the "link" element/header, which is already defined both in RFC5988 and in XRD for referencing the media-type associated with that link. In that sense an hcard link rel would typically be "text/html" whilst a poco#me representation of the "profile" link could be "application/json".
However I do understand that this may not be enough for correctly characterizing the format of the specific profile information: how would I indicate in fact that this "profile" link/web page is hcard-enabled or not a priori? Same for json: poco is a popular json format for representing profile info but may not be the only one.
My point is I may have the following xrd at this stage with the profile rel links:
<Link rel="profile" type="text/html" href="http://example.com/profiles/joe" />
<Link rel="profile" type="text/html" href="http://example.com/profiles/joe/hcard" />
<Link rel="profile" type="application/json" href="http://example.com/profiles/joe/poco" />
...without any clear view on which "profile" provides which format.
I hope I have clarified my point here and welcome your feedback on this.

walter

[1] http://www.packetizer.com/webfinger/link_relations.html

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.