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

"Paul E. Jones" <> Thu, 28 June 2012 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF8721F8512 for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xGOhKyYnT2GS for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3C621F8503 for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5SEbKG1016461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:37:21 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=dublin; t=1340894242; bh=7wFsQ5GxzY/R/fC0YjJ6R0Qqmm8zY1uElSLp2Gyz3FA=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=WPgXNsu6r/3jTiv0hq1NIC7J3Z9fPyOhbpoSjaCGctxHYzFJhV//9qO7tLIGzb7Kr vbWFRNib2sq1CdyyS2nggCOJ6n3fhSF9ISeEQyntRsi6kEK7Il4BctLjxHo/z42vOe IVkOJkU7pFI/CbexAd6f2QaWvfkhy0Iib+w27r3g=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <>
To: 'Melvin Carvalho' <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <043201cd54a5$79f2e170$6dd8a450$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:37:29 -0400
Message-ID: <05b701cd553b$8cc82210$a6586630$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05B8_01CD551A.05B6F740"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHACExhZgXedi2je/bJAOmWfz8jRwJIaUzKAl3mCNAA4XnPygFMoDK7Aaa5ChoBPL+df5bcnSFg
Content-Language: en-us
Cc:, "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:37:29 -0000



Just to the below point, it is the common discovery pattern that acct
addresses.  A service provider might identify users  in any number of ways,
but people need a well-defined and predictable way of using WebFinger.
Plus, they need an ID that has been proven to be understood by the average
user.  If I see a twitter ID like "paulej", I should be able to safely
assume that I can discover information via WF using
Users will likely not enter the "acct:" part, but that's fine.  They often
do not enter "http://", either.


The reason I say that identifying Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, or other users
is in scope is that, regardless if those services publish via WebFinger or
not, the approach taken to discovery given a username and a domain name
should be consistent across the web.


Things like Open Graph are fine, but we need something consistent across the
web for simple, consistent discovery of information related to a URI.




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