W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fedsocweb@w3.org > November 2012

Re: WebFinger compromises

From: John Panzer <jpanzer@google.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:23:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJu8rwUYdpm9EeOeokhR39EV1gX9ki9iMatvynRMo-4_cnoBPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: webfinger@googlegroups.com
Cc: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@google.com>, public-fedsocweb@w3.org, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
If somehow Brad doesn't have time to make a JSON endpoint for
gmail.comthen I will volunteer my 20% time to do so.  Non issue.
On Nov 1, 2012 6:30 AM, "Evan Prodromou" <evan@status.net> wrote:

>  On 12-10-31 06:26 PM, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
>  StatusNet can continue to speak whatever it wants among itself.  But
> WebFinger is JSON only.  (whether or not the spec says JSON only, it's
> JSON-only in practice, if JSON is the only MUST for both client and server.)
>
>
>> JSON preferred, XML optional is probably the only way to go forward.
>>
>
>  Your argument seems to be: "Status.net exists => Must have XML. QED." I
> don't buy it.
>
>  Status.net is tiny in the grand scheme of what WebFinger could be.  I
> believe it'll only be successful if it's simple.
>
> I'm more concerned about gmail.com (and to a lesser extent yahoo.com).
> It's nice to be able to say, "there are hundreds of millions of Webfinger
> accounts out there."
>
> If gmail.com can upgrade, I'm more than happy to see just JSON, although
> I'd prefer we use a different well-known endpoint so that older clients and
> servers can still run smoothly.
>
> In other words: older clients will try to get XRD from
> <domain>/.well-known/host-meta. It's easy for us to avoid breaking them, so
> let's do that.
>
> -Evan
>
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 16:24:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 November 2012 16:24:08 GMT