Re: WebFinger compromises

On 12-10-31 11:48 AM, Dick Hardt wrote:
> +1 on everything.
>
> A simple, easy to understand spec that solves the major use cases 
> released soon is far superior to kitchen sink spec that solves all use 
> cases that is released in a year.
I think that RFC 6415 does that:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6415

It describes pretty clearly what most of us have meant by "Webfinger".
> JSON only (if that is not obvious, you need to write some code this 
> decade)
I don't think this is reasonable. We're lucky to have had some quick 
implementations of Webfinger and it's not clear how or when they'd be 
updated to JSON. For Open Source implementations like StatusNet, we just 
don't have the ability to force people to roll out new versions.

JSON preferred, XML optional is probably the only way to go forward.
> 1 round trip vs 2 round. Pick one that is simple to implement. Let's 
> not get caught up in optimization. Brad's comments below seem sane (as 
> usual)
>
The current spec is here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-02

It describes a 1-round-trip extension to RFC 6415.

Here's what I think is important: we need to build applications that use 
Webfinger. There's a virtuous cycle we haven't yet kickstarted. Things 
like Simple Web Discovery are a step in the wrong direction.

-Evan

-- 
Evan Prodromou, CEO and Founder, StatusNet Inc.
1124 rue Marie-Anne Est #32, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2J 2B7
E:evan@status.net  P: +1-514-554-3826