- From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
- Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:19:20 -0400
- CC: "public-fedsocweb@w3.org" <public-fedsocweb@w3.org>
Nick Jennings wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Melvin Carvalho > <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 31 May 2013 11:50, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl > <mailto:rysiek@fwioo.pl>> wrote: > > Dnia piątek, 31 maja 2013 o 06:59:52 Melvin Carvalho napisał(a): > > On 30 May 2013 20:26, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak > <rysiek@fwioo.pl <mailto:rysiek@fwioo.pl>> wrote: > > > > The web was designed to be social from day 1. There are > standards for this > > kind of thing, but they are highly underused, with perhaps, > the exception > > of facebook. > > Are you talking about how Facebook uses XMPP? Otherwise, I > don't see the "open > social interoperable standard" in Facebook (although, granted, > I'm not a user > there). > > > There are many things about facebook that are not ideal, such as > privacy issues and centralization, but it is a market leader and > some of the technology is worth examining, imho > > There is the xmpp, but I'm more referring to how facebook uses web > standards to federate. Facebook federation is found on over 10% of > all websites, so they must be doing something scalable. The > techniques are to leverage HTTP via the open graph protocol > > > Is it true federation though? I was under the impression that true > federation, in the SMTP sense, would mean that users don't have to > have a facebook account in order to interoperate. > Yup. That's what the textbook definition would say. It still leaves the issue of needing some kind of identity, which might be tied to a specific system or vendor (e.g. Active Directory for Windows, OpenID, any certificate based system that's tied to a certificate authority). But that's separable from the core design. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 21:19:43 UTC