Re: Thinking about Webfinger

ne 7. 5. 2023 v 1:02 odesílatel Erin Shepherd <erin.shepherd@e43.eu> napsal:

> There's no need for any changes for any URIs with a host component (any
> containing an @ or //, broadly)
>
> Though you're correct that it's not defined in the case of other
> structures, those are comparatively rare (though some of them are certainly
> interesting); and some of them come with discovery methods implicit in
> their design
>

Yes, exactly!  I mean in theory you could look up an http url with
webfinger, this question did actually come up during the discussions.  But
of course you'd never do that, because http has its own tooling curl, the
browser, xhr etc.


>
> On Sun, 7 May 2023, at 00:58, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
> ne 7. 5. 2023 v 0:12 odesílatel Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> napsal:
>
> Johannes,
> Okay. I understand why people don't like content-negotiation, even if it
> is explicitly mentioned in the WebFinger RFC. But, can you explain what, if
> anything, is wrong with:
>
>    - Using WebFinger to resolve did:* URIs, and
>    - Returning a did document, or a link to one, as either a property or
>    link in a JRD response?
>
> Why isn't the existing WebFinger specification sufficient to allow useful
> lookup of did documents?
>
> I'm thinking that:
>
> https://example.com/.well-known/webfinger?resource=
> "did:web:w3c-ccg.github.io:user:alice"
>
> might return either:
>
> 1. A link to a did document:
>
> {
>   "subject": "did:web:example.com:user:alice",
>   "links": [
>     {
>       "rel": "http://example.com/rel/did-doc",
>       "href": "https://example.com/user/alice/did.json"
>     }
>   ]
> }
>
> (Note: If this was commonly used, someone might want to register the
> appropriate rel type with IANA. But, that's not necessary.)
>
> or,
> 2. A did document as a JRD property:
>
> {
>   "subject": "did:web:example.com:user:alice",
>   "properties": {
>     "http://example.com/did-doc": {
>       "@context": [
>         "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1",
>         "https://w3id.org/security/suites/jws-2020/v1"
>       ],
>       "id": "did:web:example.com:user:alice",
>       "verificationMethod": []
>     }
>   }
> }
>
> (Note: If this was commonly used, someone might want to register an
> appropriate property type with IANA. But, that's not necessary.)
>
> Is there some reason why either of these would not be useful and
> appropriate?
>
>
> Webfinger is primarily designed to look up user@host identifiers, which
> are conceptually similar to mailto:user@host. The "acct:" prefix might be
> considered unnecessary, but that is the current convention.
>
> Webfinger was not intended to handle other URI schemes, and accommodating
> them could involve significant changes. With hundreds of schemes available,
> including over 200 sub-protocols for DIDs, each scheme typically has its
> own lookup mechanisms. User@host identifiers are prevalent on the social
> web, and integrating them into the world of linked data, including lookup,
> will be essential.
>
> It would be intriguing to examine Webfinger and JRD usage statistics to
> gain insights into their adoption and deployment levels.
>
>
>
> bob wyman
>
>