- From: elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:38:33 +0200
- To: public-xg-federatedsocialweb <public-xg-federatedsocialweb@w3.org>
- Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net
Hello Everyone, I don't have much xp with such cross mailing list + individuals conversations so I warmly welcome any suggestion of using To, Cc, threading and quotes in smarter way, some relevant ones related to thread I have started here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-federatedsocialweb/2011Oct/0020.html Excerpts from Eran Hammer-Lahav's message of 2011-10-21 22:12:18 +0200: > I'm trying to avoid getting re-engaged in this conversation all over again. SWD is mostly a duplicated effort for host-meta, especially now that host-meta supports a simple JSON structure. The OpenID Connect effort is largely a waste of time because the market has moved on from that and I can't see any large providers investing much in it without FB or Twitter using it. >· > I am happy to give my 5c but am not looking to get invested in this. Happy to join a conf call or answer a few questions via email. >· > EHL Excerpts from Michiel de Jong's message of 2011-10-21 14:57:51 +0200: > ok, so the big difference between webfinger and swd is that webfinger is > always the same static file, depending only on the username, and swd can > answer specific entries. i can see now how there can be situations where you > want to control access per-entry, and why swd might then be the only valid > choice. I would really like to discuss it with people interested in this Webfinger vs. SWD issue! Maybe we could try to organize a teleconf to clarify few things about it? Cheers, ~ elf Pavlik ~
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 20:41:35 UTC