Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" URI scheme

[Paul Frazee <[e-mail]>]

The idea is indeed that at:// could user-facing in the same way http:// is.
The intent is to express a social address so that I could be at://
pfrazee.com to provide a social identity and http://pfrazee.com to provide
a website. We're hoping to make the scheme intuitive to people, as it has a
clear connection to the "@pfrazee.com" convention.

I can understand the hesitance around what we're proposing. It's a common
word and assigning it to an early project is a big ask. I'd like to keep
the scheme because I believe it's user-friendly, but I also don't want to
push something that people aren't comfortable with.

My question from here is, is there a way forward to address the concerns
around this proposal, or do folks feel like this proposal is a non-starter?
If there is a path forward, how can we help get there?

Paul

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:54 AM Graham Klyne <[e-mail]> wrote:

> A small clarification to Eliot's comment: the *provisional* registry is
> FCFS, but there is still a possibility for a hold-up come the time this is
> advanced to a permanent registration.  The good news is that by raising
> this here and now (rather than waiting for a permanent registration
> review), there's a better chance that a consensus on this issue can emerge
> before the protocol is very widely deployed.  So, thank you for doing that!
>
> #g
>
>
> On 08/05/2023 09:18, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> Hi Bryan,
>
> As Alex mentioned, I wasn't referring to URI schemes, but rather that the
> word "at" is not descript, reused in many different contexts, from Austria
> to a preposition, to a scheduling command in UNIX to various other acronym
> expansions.  My understanding is that the registry is FCFS, and so this is
> *advice*.  Whatever you choose you'll be stuck with.  If you even added
> an extra character or two that could make more clear what this is, you may
> find it helpful later on.
>
> Eliot
> On 08.05.23 00:14, [e-mail] wrote:
>
>
> Hi Eliot,
>
> We did do both some general search, and checked against the URI schema
> registry when starting work on the protocol, and are not aware of any
> problematic existing use or conflicts the the use of the URI scheme name.
>
> The closest confusion we are aware of with 'at' is the Hayes AT command
> originally used with modems. We are unaware of any URI scheme specifically
> for the Hayes AT command set, and while that command set is still in broad
> use, it does not seem likely to start using one now.
>
> "at" matches our protocol name ("AT" stands for "Authenticated Transfer").
> There is a bit of wordplay going on with "@" (the "at symbol"), which is
> used as a prefix convention in social media to indicate a user handle. AT
> Protocol is primarily used for social media applications (at least, that is
> the focus at present).
>
> As precedent, there are several other two-character URI schemes in the
> current registry.
>
> URIs starting with "at://" are already being used by several
> implementations of the AT Protocol. At this point it seems like a change
> would only add to confusion.
>
> --bryan
>
> On Sun, 7 May 2023, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> As another casual observer, can I suggest that you use a slightly more
> descriptive scheme name?  "at" is heavily overloaded, and a name that
> provides at least a guess what this is will serve the user better.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>
> --
> Graham Klynemailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>http://www.ninebynine.org
> Mastodon: @[e-mail]
> GitHub/Skype: @gklyne
>
>