- From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:19:41 -0400
- CC: "public-fedsocweb@w3.org" <public-fedsocweb@w3.org>
Or LDAP. Simon Tennant wrote: > I generally dislike /.well-known because it makes lots of assumptions > about the web-root being available. > > Three problems with this: > 1. Others might run hosted personal pages like those hosted on > about.me <http://about.me>. For example my sister runs a hosted store > on her domain. Short of getting the eCommerce provider to change their > code, she would never be able to implement anything social. > > 2.Often times an organization will have their web-root maintained by > another company. Page updates could easily overwrite a nice > /.well-known hierachy. > > 3. I don't know the answer to this, but how long should /.well-known > be considered authoritative? What kind of refresh interval? > > When you start thinking about it, this is all a hack to accomplish > what DNS already does. DNS-SD has already solved this, and has > caching, and with zone signing, authority. > > S. > > > > > On 6 June 2013 16:22, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com > <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I was thinking about the issue of finding user profiles on a > social net, and it's not always easy to know where a user's data > will be located. There seems to be no well known place to get > user information from a profile. Which means it's harder for HTTP > based social web users to talk to each other. > > One increasingly popular method is to use the /.well-known/ > directory. The disadvantage of this approach is that is it pretty > rigid and people say it amounts out of band hard coding. However > one advantage is that it can save a round trip, compared with > follow your nose, and it can client implementations more straight > forward. > > Taking the well known directory a logical pattern might be to > register: > * > * > */.well-known/user/bob* > > For the FSW? > > > /Would it allow redirects/ -- I would say yes. > > /What would it return/ -- I would suggest linked data. Ideally a > browser would see html and an ajax request would see JSON, but you > could start with just one of the two, say JSON only. > > > Good idea / bad idea / too hard to implement ... thoughts? > > > > > -- > Simon Tennant | buddycloud.com <http://buddycloud.com> | +49 17 8545 > 0880 | office hours: goo.gl/tQgxP <http://goo.gl/tQgxP> -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 15:20:12 UTC