W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fedsocweb@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Federation protocols

From: Simon Tennant <simon@buddycloud.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 18:34:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CACEE+iOQJbN41MfFGVBV1q=rre6ZMUKv7kzgFbGCiqxXnaLmHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-fedsocweb@w3.org" <public-fedsocweb@w3.org>
On 31 May 2013 18:00, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl> wrote:

> > or pump?
> I see pump as something that actually actively goes against what we really
> need right now -- a single interoperability standard for federated social
> services.

It seems like you believe that privacy alone is enough to get an
alternative to Facebook to work. Why did this not work with Diaspora?

Again we are back to the solution you are proposing is to take the lowest
common denominator of all three and force them to interoperate.

If you are serious about this, you try to map the functions between the
different social networks. As I said earlier, the devil is in the details
and it's not for lack of trying. You will need to look at each API call and
each protocol call, look at how all the networks resynchronise posts and
then try to find commonality. And you will have to make sure that the
application logic matches.

You will then need to come up for a solution for the situation where one
network wants to focus on feature X that will break backwards compatibility
with two other networks.

It's nice to ignore the details, but they have a habit of coming back to
bite you hard.


> What in your mind "establishes" them?

That's obviously a "tricky" question. But a recommendation from W3C on a
federated social standard is one point. Usage across different services is
another. Coherent and complete documentation is yet another.

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania

Simon Tennant | buddycloud.com | +49 17 8545 0880 | office hours:
Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 16:34:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:57 UTC