Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted

I would prefer if the wording didn't require that order of listing is
required to indicate a necessary order of preference. Thus, I suggest the
following wording:

The order of elements in the "links" array *MAY be read as indicating*
an order of preference.

The idea is to permit readers to infer order of preference, and to
allow writers to express that order, without requiring that a
preferred order be determined or expressed. Where there is no
preferred order, there will be no harm. Where there is a preferred
order, the right thing will happen.

bob wyman

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>wrote:

> Why not have the client always offer items in the array in order? Any
> reason to randomly select items from the array?
>
> Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sat Aug 17 14:49:05 EDT 2013
> *To:* Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> *Cc:* "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, webfinger <
> webfinger@ietf.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted
>
>
>
>
> On 17 August 2013 20:45, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>  When used, the ordering can do good.  When not used, it does no harm.
>> Please leave it in.
>>
>
> Mike, my question related to how the client can *know* when it's used and
> when it's not used.  This seems unclear?
>
>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>                                                             Thanks,****
>>
>>                                                             -- Mike****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* webfinger-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:webfinger-bounces@ietf.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Melvin Carvalho
>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:40 AM
>> *To:* Paul E. Jones
>> *Cc:* webfinger
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On 17 August 2013 20:32, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:****
>>
>> Melvin,****
>>
>> We have been asked about this before. If we leave it in, it meets the
>> needs of some. I admit there might be cases where it's hard to control
>> order, but if it matters, there is at least a way.****
>>
>> In my own implementation, I assign an integer value to each entry and
>> sort on that.****
>>
>> I have no strong objection either way, but I do think it's good to have
>> for those who care.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I understand the trade offs.  However, I can see that this is useful in
>> many cases, particularly this would work well for openid, but other use
>> cases, eg to have a friends list, for something like a federated social
>> web, would then be perhaps impractical with JRD (not the end of the world,
>> though)****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  Paul****
>>
>> ** **
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Sat Aug 17 14:12:11 EDT 2013
>> *To:* "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
>> *Cc:* webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] New WebFinger Draft posted****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On 9 August 2013 18:09, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:****
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> As we're trying to bring the WebFinger spec to a close, we published a new
>> version -17 with some changes the WG might want to consider.
>>
>> Draft is:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-17
>>
>> Those changes are:
>>
>> - Section 2, added a new last paragraph to explain what URI syntax we use
>> in
>> WebFinger
>> - Corrected error in section 3.2 ("Host:" line in example and quotes
>> around
>> "3.2")
>> - We remove the words "absolute URI" since it's really redundant
>> - Added "query target" to 4.5 for clarity
>> - Introduced a new section 8 that describes "WebFinger" applications.
>>  This
>> is a major new addition.
>> - Added a new section 10.3 and 10.4 to address registration of link
>> relation
>> types and properties.  Link relations types already have a registry and we
>> refer to existing procedures.  WebFinger properties did not have a
>> registry,
>> so we define one, primarily for the purpose of helping people avoid
>> creating
>> redundant definitions.
>>
>> If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to post to the
>> list.****
>>
>>
>> [[****
>>
>>    The order of elements in the "links" array indicates an order of****
>>
>>    preference.  Thus, if there are two or more link relations having the****
>>
>>    same "rel" value, the first link relation would indicate the user's****
>>
>>    preferred link.****
>>
>> ]]
>>  ****
>>
>> Maybe remove this altogether, as I am unsure it can be guaranteed.****
>>
>> Case 1: Let's say I have a list of friends, how am I to determine as a
>> server the preferred friends?  How am I to determine as a client whether
>> the friends are ordered or not?****
>>
>> Case 2: Say I mash up data from two sources, how do I then order the
>> combined list?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> webfinger mailing list
>> webfinger@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger****
>>
>>  ** **
>>
>>  ** **
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>
>