- From: Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:07:28 +0300
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-fedsocweb@w3.org
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > This is correct. But a widely used protocol like HTTP benefits from 20 > years of tooling and the network effect, which translates into a big > advantage, to those that embrace it. > > Of the newer protocols (eg webfinger to name one of many) , it's anyone's > guess which will succeed. But, I watch on with interest :) it also matters which alternatives we have. we use http(s) in three places: visiting a website, ajax, and server-to-server. For visiting a website, the alternative to http(s) that i'm aware of are spdy and opening an in-browser app that was installed using mozilla open web apps, chrome web apps, or opera widgets formats. for ajax, alternatives that i'm aware of are websockets and spdy. for server-to-server there are lots of alternatives, including ssh and xmpp. afaik there are no alternatives to client-side webfinger resolution (except that webfinger's format is itself under discussion, including its alternative simple-web-discovery format, but since implementing webfinger is in itself so super simple, we can take that in our stride i think). For server-side webfinger resolution you could choose xmpp disco instead. Maybe a good fedsocweb server does both, and combines the results
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 18:07:55 UTC