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

Why don't I get a writeup done to clear up questions (I apologize for not
leading with one). I'll address what you're suggesting/asking about,
Melvin, and some of the other questions. While I'm working on that, feel
free to drop in more questions and I'll include them in the writeup.

Paul

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 1:29 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> st 10. 5. 2023 v 19:29 odesílatel Paul Frazee <pfrazee@gmail.com> napsal:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> Potential Approach
>
> I've noticed similarities between Webfinger, which aimed to return JSON
> from a DNS-like identifier with an "@" symbol, and your current situation.
> Webfinger eventually established the acct: URI scheme. However, in 2012,
> Mark Nottingham suggested an alternative lookup method, such as
> ".well-known/webfinger?user=bob@host".
>
> You might consider registering an "atprotocol" under .well-known and use
> the following format: ".well-known/atprotocol?user=<atproto_identifier>".
> If the dereferencing is handled by the BGS rather than individual hosts,
> perhaps a simple lookup would suffice, eliminating the need for a new URI
> scheme.
>
>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:54 AM Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> 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, bnewbold@robocracy.org 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 listUri-review@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>>
>>> --
>>> Graham Klynemailto:gk@ninebynine.org <gk@ninebynine.org>http://www.ninebynine.org
>>> Mastodon: @gklyne@indieweb.social
>>> GitHub/Skype: @gklyne
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Uri-review mailing list
>> Uri-review@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
>