Re: WebFinger compromises

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Evan Prodromou <evan@status.net> wrote:

>  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".
>

And then some extra distracting stuff.

> 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.
>

That spec you just cited said JSON is required and XRD is optional, so what
do you mean by "not clear how or when they'd be updated to JSON"--- if they
don't support JSON they don't speak WebFinger.

"Updating" any current WebFinger library from XRD+JSON to just-JSON is
simply a matter of deleting, not adding.


>  For Open Source implementations like StatusNet, we just don't have the
> ability to force people to roll out new versions.
>

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.


> 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.
>

I argued that the extension is a dangerous early optimization.


> Here's what I think is important: we need to build applications that use
> Webfinger.
>

Here's what I think is important: WebFinger needs to be simple. It has
morphed into not simple.


> There's a virtuous cycle we haven't yet kickstarted. Things like Simple
> Web Discovery are a step in the wrong direction.
>

I don't even know what SWD is, nor do I want to.