W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2012

Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 19:55:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4FBE8418.8090707@ninebynine.org>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, paulej@packetizer.com
On 23/05/2012 16:35, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 23 May 2012, at 17:19, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
>
>> Of possible interest to the TAG: this is being discussed on the apps-discuss mailing list, where there is a long thread. Note specifically the discussion of a proposed "acct" URI scheme "to identify individuals".
>
> There cannot be only one scheme to identify individuals. You can do it with http, https, ftp, ftps, and many other
> ways. The folks should stick to stating their claims in general terms: "a URI that identifies an agent of some
> kind", without tying themselves to one in particular.

Just to be clear... they are *not* tying themselves to a particular scheme. 
That's been stated quite emphatically.

The uncompelling aspect of their proposal, as I see it, is that it's hard to see 
what distinct purpose is served by the proposed acct: scheme that can't easily 
be handled by another scheme.  But it seems there are strong "social" pressures 
(and maybe operational - I can't tell based on my limited knowledge of the 
context) to have something that is distinct from specific applications/protocols 
to have a way of finding information accounts without their "own" URI shceme.

 From a pure technical perspective, I think it's fairly clear that another 
scheme *could* be used, say http:, but I can't quite quite figure why that's 
considered unacceptable.

#g
--
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 19:08:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 May 2012 19:08:16 GMT