W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2012

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:15:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4FE607B3.9010908@openlinksw.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
On 6/23/12 9:42 AM, Nathan wrote:
>
> So rather than creating an unstable pretty much useless URI for use 
> internally within a specific protocol, why not take advantage of this 
> provision and define the variable {acct} instead, such that you can do:
>
> https://gmail.com/.well-known/host-meta?acct=joe@gmail.com
>
> That way you tie in with web architecture, don't need a new 
> URI-scheme, and still get to do what's required. 

In what context is any URI useless? Please remember URI abstraction re. 
context of my question.

Again: https://gmail.com/.well-known/host-meta?acct=joe@gmail.com , is a 
URL, a data access address. Webfinger folks don't want to present: 
<https://gmail.com/.well-known/host-meta?acct=joe@gmail.com> as a name 
to its end-users and developers when they use: <acct:joe@gmail.com> .

In a nutshell, you are implying that Linked Data is only achievable via 
http: scheme URIs. That simply isn't true. Even worse, you are making 
your case using host-meta which is all about delivering a generic 
resolver mechanism for URIs. Basically, decoupling the name/access 
functionality that's baked into http: URLs.

Being convenient and cost-effective doesn't make http: scheme URIs the 
sole option for Linked Data. It just doesn't.


-- 

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






Received on Saturday, 23 June 2012 18:15:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:45 UTC