Re: Registration of acct: as a URI scheme has been requested

On 6/21/12 4:14 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> Hopefully,  you can see how this becomes a major HttpRange-14 imbroglio
>> vector.
> Dragging httpRange-14 into this discussion seems like a bad idea.

Its always a bad idea.

acct: scheme URIs provide an option that keeps HttpRange-14 at bay re. 
names that resolve to description bearing resources. Its a more 
intuitive naming mechanism than an http: scheme URI. Of course, its more 
expensive, ultimately, due to http: scheme URI ubiquity and the state of 
http user agents re., the Web.

>
> I don't want to take 2616 as sacrosanct, or to say the draft acct:
> registration is right. Maybe the answer is to change the webfinger
> draft to be clearer regarding the intended semantics.

Maybe, but when I encountered Webfinger (years ago) it was clear to me 
that it offered a solution to intuition challenges inherent in http: 
scheme URIs for broad audiences. The intuition problem always arises 
when introducing the notion of de-referencable http: scheme URIs as a 
denotation mechanism for real-world entities. The HttpRange-14 trap door 
opens whenever you attempt to explain this particular usage pattern to 
end-users and developers.
>
> (HTTPbis says more than 2616, and it is possible that the new text has
> this function. But let's defer that question for now.)

Yes.

Links:

1. http://hueniverse.com/2009/08/making-the-case-for-a-new-acct-uri-scheme/
2. http://hueniverse.com/discovery/ .


>
> Jonathan
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen