- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:32:58 +0100
- To: Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
- CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, www-tag@w3.org, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Read-Write-Web <public-rww@w3.org>
Michiel de Jong wrote: > Hi Nathan, > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >> Each service I can think of, has a stable (non-URI) identifier for user >> accounts, from google through twitter, IMO those should be used, not these >> fragile email addresses with a new scheme bolted on the front to try and >> make it identify something it doesn't. > > It's a premise of webfinger that we resolve a human-memorable string > of the form 'user@host' to accounts. I understand that, but don't see any need for a acct: URI scheme to accomplish that. This is a URI that will accomplish the task: https://gmail.com/.well-known/host-meta?resource=joe@gmail.com So where's the need for acct: ? This is not two URIs, it's one URI, and no better than the above in any way: https://gmail.com/.well-known/host-meta?resource=acct:joe@gmail.com Thus, I conclude that the only reason to have acct: and to strap it to joe@gmail.com is to use it as an identifier for an account, when that account already has a perfectly good, stable over time, but not exposed and non dereferencable identifier of it's own. Hence my previous mail. Best, Nathan
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2012 12:33:55 UTC