W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > January 2015

Webfinger

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:00:18 -0500
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>,☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
CC: public-socialweb@w3.org
Message-ID: <A9C24181-E35C-48A3-BF51-0BE1FAF1FF68@w3.org>
On January 30, 2015 8:55:00 AM EST, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>If we decide to use WebFinger here, then so be it. I personally feel
>it's
>easily possible to do significantly better.

Shall we open an ISSUE on this?   My sense is webfinger is kind of useful and also kind of annoying if you need to map email to proper IDs.

Even if webfinger were perfect for this, I'd probably still lean against using email addresses as primary identifiers for accounts.    I think.    Mostly I'm aware how much technical and social baggage they have.    Maybe I'm biased by my older-teen kids thinking of email as obsolete (and dumb).

The indieweb reasons against webfinger are mostly not compelling for me, but a few of them are.    If we're going to use it, I'd think we should update it to be JUST a mapping from email to profile URL.  That is, http://w3.org/.well-known/wf2?email= sandro@w3.org would http redirect to http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro.   And that would be the entirely of the standard, give or take edge cases.

    - Sandro

>On Jan 30, 2015 4:15 AM, "☮ elf Pavlik ☮"
><perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
>wrote:
>
>> On 01/28/2015 09:54 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
>wrote:
>> >> I kind of like the trick of having the identifier for the account
>(aka
>> >> persona) also be the URL for the profile.  I'd also make that the
>root
>> URL
>> >> for the user's webspace.   EG http://tantek.com/  or
>> >> http://sandhawke.livejournal.com/
>> >>
>> >> I know some people don't like that, though, so maybe we can't
>collapse
>> the
>> >> three.    Still, it's painful to have the identifier for the
>> account/persona
>> >> not be either of those two URLs.    If it's not one of those, what
>is
>> it,
>> >> and how can we make sure people understand it and use it
>correctly?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I agree that it would be ideal to collapse these but I don't
>believe
>> > we can get away with it entirely. For instance, within IBM we have
>a
>> > corporate "Intranet ID" which is essentially our work email
>addresses.
>> > We use these ID's to log in to various services internally,
>including
>> > our internal deployment of our Connections product. We have a
>couple
>> > of different systems that provide a Profile that describes an
>> > individual. The Connections Profile is distinct from our Corporate
>> > Employee Directory profile although there is a trend towards
>combining
>> > the two. In this case, the two profiles have distinct URL
>identifiers
>> > separate from our "Intranet ID" identifier.
>> >
>> > Using the rough sketch model I describe above, an instance of this
>> > would look like:
>> >
>> > <mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com> a :Identity, :Persona ;
>> >   describedBy
><http://directory.example.org/?id=jasnell@us.ibm.com>,
>> >           <http://connections.example.org/profiles?id=abc123> .
>> >
>> >  <http://directory.example.org/?id=jasnell@us.ibm.com> a :Profile ;
>> >   describes <mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com> .
>> >
>> > <http://connections.example.org/profiles?id=abc123> a :Profile ;
>> >   describes <mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com> .
>> >
>> > Now again, this is just a rough sketch model to help frame the
>> > conversation. I'm not arguing that this is how we have to model the
>> > API... only that these are the conceptual elements we need to be
>> > thinking about.
>> I understand that you don't use webfinger and acct: scheme?
>>
>> We discussed depending on webfinger recently:
>>
>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2014Nov/0201.html
>>
>>
>>

Shall
Received on Friday, 30 January 2015 17:00:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:14 UTC