Re: RE : Re: Federation protocols

Dnia środa, 12 czerwca 2013 o 21:36:17 Miles Fidelman napisał(a):
> Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak wrote:
> > Dnia środa, 12 czerwca 2013 o 21:03:17 Simon Tennant napisał(a):
> >> On 12 June 2013 20:38, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl> wrote:
> >>> Again, show me such a de facto standard, please. And until you do, I
> >>> will voice my opinion we need interoperability. I don't really care if
> >>> it's interoperability between *instances* or *implementations* as long
> >>> as it is a
> >>> (de facto) standard and without a doubt (by a huge margin) *most* of
> >>> the libre
> >>> people using this kind of technology use this particular
> >>> protocol/standard.
> >> 
> >> That's not how successful standardisation works.
> >> 
> >> At one point the gopher protocol was THE way to access information on
> >> the internet.
> >> 
> >> Then some annoying little upstart at CERN started trying to get people
> >> to use his standard for hypertext. And nobody wanted to even have him
> >> speak at hypertext conferences. But he kept on working on it and
> >> building *real-world* use cases and applications and a software
> >> ecosystem.
> >> 
> >> Others started contributing code to the NCSA browser and httpd.
> >> 
> >> HTML was successful because someone went and built something that was
> >> incompatible with the gopher protocol.
> >> 
> >> THEN it was standardised.
> >> 
> >> Bottom up works. Top down gives us standards that only a telco could
> >> love.
> > 
> > This is a completely different situation. Newcommer (HTML) vs. incumbent
> > (Gopher) is different than a situation with several strong contestants
> > (Diaspora, DFRN2, etc).
> > 
> > We already have good standards built bottom-up. Time to agree on some and
> > work from there.
> 
> Actually HTTP vs. gopher - both support(ed) multiple media types. It's
> also worth noting that early
> browsers supported both HTTP and gopher (and ftp and other things). It
> took a while for HTML
> to become dominant and for other protocols to be phased out of browsers.
> 
> Similarly, an awful lot of chat clients are multi-protocol.
> 
> An awful lot of mail clients and servers used to support multiple
> messaging protocols (SMTP, UUCP, NNTP, Fido, ...).
> 
> Top-down only works if you're a dominant player and can enforce your
> preferred interface.

Yes. Great. That's why I am a strong proponent of Friendica's approach of 
supporting multiple protocols. However, I believe there should be a protocol 
that sshould be "preferred", "recommended" by this group, so that if anybody 
writes another libre social networking software, they will have a clear 
indication which protocol to implement first.

For the thousandth time: I am not advocating a strong-arm approach of "making" 
(however that might work) all projects use one and the same protocol.

I am *strongly* advocating this group to sit down and try to come up with a 
single *recommendation* as far as a federated social network protocol is 
concerned. Anything that could work as an interoperability bridge between the 
networks.

-- 
Pozdrawiam
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania