Re: Federation protocols

This is a polyglot gateway, correct?

Would it be possible (and reasonable) to use the same approach for other
protocols?

Cheers,
Andreas
---

Michiel B. de Jong:
> On 2013-05-31 13:37, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak wrote:
>> The whole world uses name@example.com
> 
> On 2013-05-31 12:50, Sandeep Shetty wrote:
>> I think interop on the web should be based on URLs not email addresses
> 
> Looks like a blocker, right there. Let's see if we can fix that! I
> propose a simple rule:
> 
>    "If it exists, then it is correct."
> 
> Do email-like identifiers exist? Yes, several systems use them. So then
> they are correct.
> 
> Do URL identifiers exist? Yes, several other systems use them. So then
> they are also correct.
> 
> See what is out there, and federate with it. Just federate with
> everything that exists, in the other system's native protocol (even if
> their identifiers look so funny to you) instead of trying to evangelize
> your "esperanto language" to them. I wrote http://useraddress.net:12380/
> last year to explore that approach, and I think it can work.
> 
> I think in a polyglot mindset we should allow both email-like and
> URL-like identifiers, and I even think that it is the only way forward.
> If we can apply polyglot thinking at that most basic level of the user
> identifier, then we will also be able to apply it at all the other
> levels, and can achieve interop without having to discuss superiority of
> certain design choices over others. It is actually a beautiful thing
> that all our systems are so different and unique, that's part of the
> richness! :) Let's try to federate them with each other in a polyglot way.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Michiel
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 14:06:49 UTC