Re: Standardizing the printed and HTML version of a an ActivityPub handle

Right, I was going to ask how this relates to the draft report we already
have that I think fairly summarizes the status quo.

Maybe if dwebfinger or other novel conventions are of interest to
implementers, this thread could be the occasion of a conversation to gauge
interest from implementers/maintainers of implementations.  I have heard
anecdotally of some projects getting feedback from users that having a
"special snowflake" identifier scheme is a point of friction and a limiting
factor on fediverse growth and onboarding.  I personally have always
thought of webfinger as an identifier scheme for "tenancy identity systems"
(universities, employers, big multi-user/heirarchical servers with admins,
etc), so for me the identifier system and the portability issues are
intimately tied up: users wanting an identifier that outlives their
"tenancy" on a server (or the server itself).  Others just want a simpler,
"more normal" one to "give out at parties" and "put on my profile
elsewhere". The Ghost team have written in their changelogs and AP blog
about the "webfinger workaround" (@index@example.com for ghost blogs
that... otherwise identity as just example.com) but I can also sense in
their writing that this is more of an interoperability/legacy-support
thing, since fundamentally a ghost blog is a website (and a single-actor
server for now).

Also Ryan and Anooj presented some great exploration of UX research in
overlapping problem spaces (and how to bind multiple identifier types in
smarter consumers/clients) at last FediForum, maybe they can speak to where
their work fits into this more specific use-case?

In any case, if there are implementers who would be interested in working
out a convention in common for some kind of identifier they'd rather work
with, then working out the "legacy compatibility" for webfinger-only
clients/consumers could be an interesting workstream (ultimately adding
some sections to the existing Discovery draft, in the best case
scenario?).  Count me interested, wearing my DIF and/or IPFS Foundation hat!

Thanks,
__bf

------------------------------
Juan Caballero, PhD.
Freelance <https://www.caballerojuan.com> researcher, consultant, and free
thinker
Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351
Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525, CET/UTC+2
Native: English, Español; Functional: Deutsch, Français, Português


On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:18 PM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:

> I know that ActivityPub IDs are https: URLs, and that the Webfinger format
> is only a helpful discovery mechanism.
>
> We have a Report from this CG about how Webfinger handles are used with
> ActivityPub.
>
> https://swicg.github.io/activitypub-webfinger/
>
> I was answering Johannes's question about the Webfinger format that people
> are using to sign up for Fediforum.
>
> I agree that calling them "ActivityPub handles" is a misnomer.
>
> Evan
>
> On Sep 17, 2025 19:57, ben@bengo.co wrote:
>
> The uri scheme for ActivityPub is not acct.
> Strictly speaking, I’d say there isn’t one nor should there be. It was
> discussed in the WG. You might be surprised what IANA says on the matter.
>
> Evan you are describing a different thing entirely which is the
> webfingeriverse, and it was rejected by the ActivityPub editors and every
> other author except you a very long time ago. Amongst other reasons,
> because webfinger FORBIDS identities at uri paths, and because it FORBIDS
> at the syntax level what people actually want to do which is @bengo.is
> and @company.com/store/product . Webfinger is, since we’re taking
> liberties, “not right” for ActivityPub. If you’re defining whole new social
> webs or fediverse, fine, but why confuse the *W3C ActivityPub* community by
> saying acct is the “right” way when it is literally not even an *option*
> made explicit in the spec, let alone a recommendation or a requirement.
> We’ve already debated the s for a decade. If you want to repropose it on
> its merits, make a proposal, but please don’t fiat it into being a thing
> when there are good reasons your proposal was rejected last time.
>
> With regard to registerProtocolHandler, I am a fan. That’s a separate
> issue IMHO.
> It is registered in IANA as web+ap and has been there for years.
>
> Darius, practically speaking fine replace the URI scheme with an at sign.
> @bengo.is/foo/bar
>
> looks great. From a UX perspective, when texting the IDs around in
> plaintext I STILL recommend a URI only because it will be more tappable to
> your friend. Its not a technical thing its a UX thing at least in the
> context of SMS comms.
>
> For the folks that grew up with uri schemes hidden from them by chrome et
> al, that’s ok. Replace the ugly parts with an at sign. (But it’s not
> webfinger, which bans @bengo.is ). People will figure it out. You don’t
> have to use a whole other spec from before AP with a whole other media type
> as WF requires. Webfinger people can adapt @domain.com to acct uris,
> activitypub native people can translate directly to (in parallel) https
> discovery per AP spec, and (why not) other resolvers maybe some Jabber (or
> AT) via-DNS.
> I’m not even arguing against webfinger. I’m arguing *for* @
> person.com/context and its webfinger that forbids what people want.
>
> The big thing: Let’s not tell people what to do when it’s not necessary.
> What webfinger forbids, was never relevant to any W3C SocialWG TR. Just do @
> company.com/product on the billboard. The sign maker doesn’t need to
> dictate how the reader interprets the sign.
>
> Evan, as you know, we have disagreed on this issue in person several times.
> I have to admit, 9 months ago, I sketched a “dwebfinger 🤙“ for April
> fools (and because someone asked me to) but I decided not to release it
> here because you might consider it a provocation. Please don’t. Many people
> want @domain.com and what you’re recommending is unfortunately in the way
> of it. We can agree to disagree, but please consider not throwing around a
> controversial and already debated issue as the “right” way, or at least
> please understand why I speak up to disagree. Clearly there is not
> consensus on the right way.
> 🤙
>
> [image: android-chrome-512x512.png]
>
> <https://hedgedoc.socialweb.coop/s/LwyM-4-w5#>dwebfinger - HedgeDoc
> <https://hedgedoc.socialweb.coop/s/LwyM-4-w5#>
> hedgedoc.socialweb.coop <https://hedgedoc.socialweb.coop/s/LwyM-4-w5#>
>
>
>
>
> (sent while mobile)
>
> On Sep 17, 2025, at 2:23 PM, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention the relevant RFC for the acct: URI prefix, which is
> here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7565
>
> Evan
>
> On 2025-09-17 5:16 p.m., Evan Prodromou wrote:
>
> So, this is a really interesting topic!
>
>
> In terms of the "right" format for ActivityPub accounts, I'd suggest
> sticking with bare Webfinger, username@domain.tld. If I were make a UI
> for submitting Fediverse account IDs, that's probably the format I'd use.
>
>
> From the URI perspective, for Webfinger identifiers,
> `acct:username@domain.tld` is the "right" way to do it.
>
>
> Having that be clickable means that users can assign apps to "handle" the
> URI. For example, a user could assign the Elk.zone Web application to
> handle those URIs, and show the profiles page with profile, outbox,
> followers, friends, etc. as well as affordances to follow, block, message,
> mention, etc.
>
>
> There are browser features and operating system features to define a
> handler for an URI protocol prefix. For browsers, registerProtocolHandler()
> is the way to go.
>
>
>
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/registerProtocolHandler
>
>
> Theoretically, assigning an app to handle the "acct:" prefix would let you
> create a link like this in HTML:
>
>
> <a href="acct:evan@cosocial.ca">Evan Prodromou</a>
>
>
> ...and it would just work.
>
>
> There are two problems with this, though.
>
>
> 1. Webfinger identifiers are primarily (?) used for ActivityPub actors,
> but not exclusively. It seems like a low risk, but some non-zero percentage
> of users might want Webfinger addresses to be handled by... something else?
>
>
> 2. HTML5 has an allowlist of URI prefixes that can be registered to be
> handled, and "acct:" is not on the list. You *can* use whatever prefix you
> want, as long as it start with "web+", so registering the "web+acct:"
> prefix would let you write links like this:
>
>
> <a href="web+acct:evan@cosocial.ca">Evan Prodromou</a>
>
>
> Anywho, long story short: I did a little experimentation with this on
> https://acct.swf.pub/ ; you can register that web site to handle
> web+acct: URIs, and it should then handle them correctly. (
> https://acct.swf.pub/test.html has a test link you can try). I need to
> get back to polishing it up, but I think this is an interesting area to
> pursue.
>
>
>
> On 2025-09-16 4:31 p.m., Johannes Ernst wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
> Perhaps there could also be a canonical, clickable HTML version.
>
>
> Just a thought.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
>
>
> Johannes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>