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

John Bradley <> Tue, 22 May 2012 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F235621F8647 for <>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eHXeDwtAMHk4 for <>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DD721F8618 for <>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qabj40 with SMTP id j40so3370900qab.15 for <>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=Zws2pWYw98bmL3I+wjxtqGGPaCWMDSRT92SyK95n5OY=; b=ldyjPzMH4l9NxiGjiCI9QZ15jU0XsANCaUUzdQuFNT8O+DjhIWuVQuJSFveoVFBriq RoWOu3IyQHPGASzrMYoaUJEWyg56B5/6LyXxWqvUM0932PXF2evSMZ8Rnm6DzTRcBGIx lfB1n9hGEFgAovbgZUNZhNXJeTQwgjmYKyPmPdMSeL5ATKDFDS7MbXTGlBbQm2e9cn+w 41vvFOKs9x7DgyhoosvkfFwDGZ85CYHbzX/+dbXf6MDEuPayyA90qFf3n/vcuBNNGCCf hWB12U/Dz44D0PpxlOxV/4YCc+ptib/mpF3MaQX0CPULuxU970iK/4286mSOMYJSNfUv Ythw==
Received: by with SMTP id fr2mr772131qab.81.1337712170242; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id gb7sm46920079qab.12.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 May 2012 11:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_84468139-B4B8-4002-8B38-7A24A545EAEB"
From: John Bradley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:42:48 -0400
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Mike Jones <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmO6pWew2yXN5Ue5068hFKcinP5SdM3TwgygNmieyNgizCInWE6X8IWlleXu71/G9gbiHx0
Cc: "" <>
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: Tue, 22 May 2012 18:42:52 -0000

I would prefer a separate working group, with two specs one for discovery and one for the URI scheme.

As another poster pointed out schemes have particular semantics and trigger specific browser behaviours.   The scheme needs to answer questions around expected browser behaviour.

The answer might be do WF discovery and display results in some form, but that should be separate from the discovery spec that can operate on any URI.

John B.

On 2012-05-22, at 2:35 PM, Mike Jones wrote:

> Architecturally, I believe that discovery and the acct: scheme are distinct, therefore I believe they should be separate RFCs, but I won’t lose sleep over it if the working group decides otherwise.  I believe that both documents will actually progress faster if discussions about one feature don’t become entangled in the other one.
> I STRONGLY believe that discovery should have its own working group.  Thanks for bringing that possibility up, Murray.  If acct: is split from discovery, I’m fine with it being in the same working group.
> Thanks for asking the questions, Murray.
>                                                                 -- Mike
> From: [] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 12:23 AM
> To:
> Subject: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
> As we prepare to bring webfinger into appsawg, it looks a lot like there’s substantial discussion just on the point of the proposed “acct:” scheme.
> So, a question for those tracking the discussion:  Is this a big enough topic that it should be split into its own document?  This would be a useful thing to decide as we figure out how to handle the work once it enters working group mode.
> (This by itself has me wondering if we should revisit the conversation about whether webfinger needs its own working group, but I’ll leave it to Barry and Pete to make that call.)
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list