Re: Thinking about Webfinger

so 6. 5. 2023 v 15:45 odesílatel Erin Shepherd <erin.shepherd@e43.eu>
napsal:

> I don't really see any big reasoning or need for this, but I think you
> could probably define semantics for content negotiation with the
> application/activity+json media type which made sense (perhaps related to
> the importing of xrd:Alias into AS2 that was recently discussed on
> SocialHub)
>

Oh, nice idea!  That would be completely backwards compatible given that
you can put two things in an accept header.


>
> On Sat, 6 May 2023, at 15:37, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
> so 6. 5. 2023 v 15:35 odesílatel Erin Shepherd <erin.shepherd@e43.eu>
> napsal:
>
>
> What problem are you trying to fix? Needing to support one additional
> albeit pretty trivial format?
>
>
> Exactly that, clients and servers support one protocol instead of two.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 6 May 2023, at 15:32, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
> Correction:  should read .well-known/webfinger?user=bob@host
>
> so 6. 5. 2023 v 15:31 odesílatel Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> napsal:
>
> Back in 2012 Mark Nottingham suggested a way to lookup JSON data for a
> given handle:
>
> /.well-known/user=bob@host
>
> WIth the endpoint returning JSON
>
> In retrospect this was a brilliant idea.  What happened with webfinger was
> a bit different
>
> instead of user= or acct= a new URI scheme ws minted acct:
>
> This was unnecessary, and there wasnt a good reason for it at the time
> that i can remember other than to use uris.
>
> Also at the time the JSON that came back was JRD, a whole new flavour of
> JSON modele on XRD.  However, XRD failed to gain popularity, and JRD is a
> different format to most of the fediverse.
>
> Would it be time to simplify webfiger in 3 ways.
>
> 1. no longer need the acct: URI scheme
> 2. use the simpler acct=user@host form
> 3. return a JSON serialization that is the same format as AP objects
>
> The existing infrastructure would need to be maintained because its used
> in places such as OIDC, however a newer endpoint could be advertised for
> newer systems, opting in.  Perhaps even could be proposed to the IETF as
> Webfinger 2.
>
> Is this too big a leap, or worth writing up?
>
>