- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 08:14:58 +0200
- To: Johannes Ernst <johannes.ernst@dazzlelabs.net>
- Cc: public-swicg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhL=sDMamBPfDMczbupJfujX8u5CdA_ZmDihkyAdOocjzQ@mail.gmail.com>
st 17. 9. 2025 v 19:06 odesílatel Johannes Ernst < johannes.ernst@dazzlelabs.net> napsal: > > > On Sep 16, 2025, at 22:25, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> > wrote: > > út 16. 9. 2025 v 22:32 odesílatel Johannes Ernst < > johannes.ernst@dazzlelabs.net> napsal: > >> During registration for FediForum (which is coming up again, by the way!) >> we are asking people for their social web handles: >> >> Here is a selection of what they give us when they probably mean >> ActivityPub >> >> @foo@bar >> AP: @foo@bar >> https://bar/@foo >> foo@bar >> foo (???) >> acct:foo@bar >> >> Is it time to define a canonical version? >> > > The canonical identifier is the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) or Actor > URI, as per the ActivityPub spec > > > On the protocol level, sure. > > But I’m talking about the user level. > There are two layers to this. One is the canonical identifier, what the software uses and what users can click, which, per ActivityPub, is always an http URI. The other is a human-friendly identifier for things like forms or business cards. That’s more of a convention than a standard. acct: URIs aren’t recommended in ActivityPub, and while conventions like @user@host have emerged, enforcing any single form in the UX may be hard to achieve and not strictly required. > > Cheers, > > > > Johannes. > > >
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2025 06:15:14 UTC