Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 11/14/11 1:21 AM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> Peter,
> 
>> I think that documentation of the webfinger protocol would be a good
>> thing, given that it's somewhat widely used on the web. I do not have a
>> strong opinion about whether it is needful for the APPSAWG to take on
>> this work.
> 
> The main reason I see a need for the WG item is that we're proposing a new
> URI scheme ("acct").  Presently, the text also recommends the use of CORS
> and makes other normative statements.
> 
> I could be persuaded that "acct" should be pulled out into its own document,
> since I can imagine the utility for it might be broader than Webfinger.  If
> we did that, then perhaps there is less of an argument for it being a WG
> item, but I'm not sure out the text would be progressed in that case.
> 
> In any case, I'll take input on the best way to go forward.  I don't care
> how we get there, but I fully agree with you that it ought to be documented.

Your point about the 'acct' URI scheme makes sense. I don't see a strong
need to pull it into a separate spec, but perhaps that's because I don't
know of other uses for the scheme outside of webfinger.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/