Re: Webfinger

So you're saying you don't want to /require/ Webfinger, correct?

I agree. I don't think we should require Webfinger. I think we should 
support multiple different URI types for identities, both existing ones 
and future ones.

Some I think are possible are:

  * Profile pages (http, HTML encoding)
  * Activity Streams profile URI (http, Activity Streams encoding)
  * RDF/XML
  * Webfinger
  * Just a domain
  * Email address (mailto:)
  * URNs (may especially be useful for proprietary namespaces, like
    "urn:x-twitter:evanpro")
  * tag: URIs

How you go from e.g. mailto:user@example.com to a collection of user's 
friends or the stream of the user's activities is dependent on that URI 
system. Some will have well-defined systems for discovering them; others 
won't.

For at least a few of these, we can provide link relation URIs that will 
help in the path for discovery. "If you are looking for friends, find 
the link relation 'http://example.com/social-api/friends'."

That's the extent to which we should define discovery mechanisms.

-Evan

On 2015-02-02 11:20 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> On 02/02/2015 03:05 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> I don't understand your objection.
> I think JRD may but on us some unnecessary constraints. I'll take a look
> at it and will highlight any possible issues I may notice!
>
>> Link relations are a great way to express relationships between
>> entities, whether expressed as HTML or JRD. It's even supported as part
>> of HTTP headers.
> Sure, they may even become soon better aligned with Linked Data
> https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39
>
>> -Evan
>>
>> On 2015-01-31 10:50 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>>> On 01/31/2015 04:33 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>>> I think it's sufficient to define one or more link relations for Social
>>>> API endpoints.
>>>>
>>>>       outbox
>>>>       inbox
>>>>       following
>>>>       groups
>>>>       lists
>>>>
>>>> That way different discovery mechanisms for different kinds of URI
>>>> identifiers (http, Webfinger, etc.) will work fine.
>>> -1
>>>
>>> I would prefer not to put limitations of JRD upon our work, and use
>>> webfinger *only* as a way to get equivalent http: / https: URI for URIs
>>> using other schemes acct: , mailto: , xmpp: etc.
>>>
>>> Then stating the actual relations (links/predicates) in JSON-LD document
>>> representing particular resource.
>>>
>>
>