Re: the possible impact of future changes in webfinger (was Re: Anonymity and multiple identities)

On 7/9/12 4:41 AM, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> Hi Melvin,
>
> my proposal is for fedsocweb to refer to
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-00 right now,
> and then to follow the IETF's updates from there. if at some point
> they put "obsoleted by..." on there, then we follow wherever that link
> points us to.
>
> Are you seriously proposing it's better if we fork away? Please
> consider not only the theoretical but also the practical implications
> of such a suggestion. I see no utility in it.
>
> IMHO, fedsocweb forking away from the webfinger effort would lead to
> total chaos and nothing getting built, and i think you know that, so
> it puzzles me a bit why you keep doing this, it seems so destructive?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Michiel
>
>
>

Guys, arguing about Webfinger gets us nowhere. Let it be, since its just 
an option. Nobody is being forced to use it etc.. Remember, real 
standards are retrospective rather than prospective. The reason why a 
number of W3C standards have hit adoption inertia boils down to them 
being prospective recommendations. A standard has to become de-facto en 
route to being a real standard.

No standards body can prospectively mandate a widely adopted standard. 
Its also suicidal to build any kind of marketing plan purely on the 
basis of a standards body issuing prospective standards.


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen