Re: objections to webmention

On 5 June 2016 at 22:20, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> While I agree with Melvin's design aesthetics, I acknowledge that's what
> they are.  There's no _functional_ problem with the current spec, and while
> JSON-LD and URIs seem like a good practice, there's nothing written in
> stone that says Thou Must Use URIs.
>
> I disagree however that it's a general purpose messaging framework. It's
> explicitly (per the one sentence introduction):
>   "[...] a Webmention is a notification that one URL links to another."
>
>
> Basing any understanding of webmention on the non-normative extensions
> referenced seems like a trap to be avoided.  I (personally) would simply
> remove Appendix B and focus on the actual value of the main specification.
> Extensibility without namespaces at web scale is just impossible, and may
> be leading to some of the confusion and design questions.
>

Well put!

So is webmention extensible, or is it not extensible.  I think this could
be clearer.


>
> Rob
>
>