- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 08:51:27 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
On 28 May 2012, at 08:33, Graham Klyne wrote: > On 28/05/2012 00:18, Paul E. Jones wrote: >> I think the real decision should be based on how users react. In the video >> you presented, I did not see a step where the user types anything. Thus, it >> is probably irrelevant what form the URI takes. You could merrily use >> "http" or "https" and the user does not know or care. It is a system where >> the typical end user is required to type in an ID that it suddenly becomes >> important to look at "acct". That does not appear to be happening with >> WebID. > > I think this is a key operational consideration, that the non-scheme part of the acct: URI is intended to be entered by users. I'm pretty sure you've said this before, but it seems to have been lost in the "noise". I'd be inclined to state this explicitly in the URI registration. > > Something else I think you said that I hadn't picked up previously was that alternative URI forms (different schemes) used with WebFinger might be considered to be aliases for acct: values. I think that view helps to position acct:'s "special relationship" with WebFinger +1 for the record. The canonical method of dereferencing an accnt: url seems indeed to be web-finger. ( just as the canonical method of dereferencing an http url scheme is the use of the HTTP protocol ) Henry > > #g Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 28 May 2012 06:52:07 UTC