Re: FSW CG now has 100 members

Excerpts from Melvin Carvalho's message of 2013-06-30 13:37:05 +0000:
> 1. Facebook style (bidirectional) : user sends a friend request, request is
> either rejected or accepted -- this is what people are most used to today
> 
> 2. Microblog style (unidirectional) : user follows someone on a network,
> this can be reciprocated or not -- google plus also does this
currently facebook support both options, one can either just "Follow" (some people disable it for their profiles) or "+1 Add Friend" which sends friend request and automatically "Follows" another person...

> "Activity streams solves that." -- No it doesnt, but it may in future.
> 
> The more fundamental part of this is that one system needs to know how a
> user is identified on another system.  Easy, right?  No, wrong!  Because
> everyone has a different way of identifying users.
i agree :)

> 
> Most people tend to work with local identifiers, and that works find if
> you're dealing with the same protocol.  But more problematic when trying to
> federate (hint: this is why we dont federate! :)).  Some people overload
> "email style: identifiers (which is a little better) because users can type
> this into a form, but even there there's confusion ie is it user@host or
> mailto:user@host or acct:user@host or xmpp:user@host ... all too often when
> asked about identity people cannot give an answer, or just come back with
> 'its complicated'.
i have impression that you may exaggerate here a little ;)
from what i have seen in implementations, people acting as 'users' don't need to type any URI scheme, usually form field just requires user@host , in a browser i already send it this way in From: header so maybe at some point I wouldn't even need to type this one!
i remember you sharing venn diagram once presenting email style and http identifiers and their adoption...


> Identity is more complicated that it seems, but it need not be.  I think
> this is an area where standardization can help.  If each system can say
> "Here are the identifiers that we accept, and here are the ones ones we
> dont accept", everyone can know who they are able to federate with.
> Presently it's hard! :)
myself i don't mind using both identifiers:
https://wwelves.org/perpetual-tripper (I still need to make it valid WebID)
perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org (I still need to setup proper webfinger and persona endpoints on that domain)

i find interesting that webfinger spec went HTTPS only path, but WebID also allows HTTP

BTW we might try to coordinate with people running last few years: http://www.internetidentityworkshop.com

☮ elf Pavlik ☮

Received on Sunday, 30 June 2013 16:33:52 UTC