On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Chris Messina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Presume that I have a URL of my own, given a recipient URL, I want to be > able to send a message "at it" and have it be received on the other end, and > be routed properly, based on the recipient's rules. As the sender, I just > want to be able to send a message and know that the recipient should receive > it. > > This parallels having a "from" email address and sending it "to" a > recipient email address. But in this case we're replacing email as the > identifier with a URL. > Steve Ivy and I kicked around some ideas last week. They're recorded on the DiSo project blog here: http://diso-project.org/wiki/messaging-brainstorming > So if I self-identify as http://twitter.com/factoryjoe and I want to send > a message to http://twitter.com/redmonk, if on that endpoint is a > discovery document that suggests where to send messages and how to sign them > so that the messages will be received and not rejected outright, I think > we're getting somewhere. > Also, people don't self-identify as URLs. The OpenID experiment seems to have proven this, as the consensus seems to be around using email addresses (or email address-like identifiers) as OpenID identifiers. > I see no reason not to use ATOM or XMPP for this, except that XMPP doesn't > work well with today's shared hosting environments. Perhaps we use XRDS > discovery to point to an XMPP endpoint and then offer a fallback ATOM > endpoint in the case that XMPP would fail? > I still question the requirement that this stuff run in a dreamhost-like environment, where you don't have access to run daemons, and to that end can only offer that the HTTP form of messaging should be a degraded form of XMPP, not the primary mechanism. XRDS for this seems like massive overkill. Whatever happened to good 'ol <link rel>? It works fantastically for RSS feeds, which are alternate representations of presented data, just like messaging endpoints. > You know that I'm against inventing unnecessarily -- which is why I pointed > out this microblogging effort. It might not be the way to do it, but it > gives us an example of someone's thinking that's actually been implemented > and gives us something to build against. > I appreciate the effort, but frankly, Twitter exports all the microblogging information using a combination of already-available standards; Atom (maybe hAtom?), hCard, etc. Why on earth would we seek to re-implement Atom when a simpler approach satisfies the needs? > > Chris > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> My question is given the simplicity of microblogging, assuming we get an >> activity stream spec/solution figured out, wouldn't it implicitly solve the >> "open" microblogging need? Given that a microblogging "action" is the same >> as its "notification", it looks to me to be a specialized subset of activity >> streams. >> >> EHL >> >> >> >> On 6/18/08 11:22 AM, "Stephen Paul Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Is this something we could/should implement? How could we make it more >> > "DiSo" friendly? (Sorry I need to read it over but haven't had a chance >> > yet). >> >> I have said this to Steve privately, and I will now say it publicly: >> reinventing messaging protocols over HTTP is a *bad* idea. We have >> protocols (more than one, two very popular ones), *open* *standard* >> protocols (yes, I'm looking square at SMTP and XMPP - as well as NNTP, >> which is less applicable) that do messaging *well* *really well* they >> were, well, *built for it*. They have faced the problems and improved >> to solve them. They stand the test of time, *do* the job, and are >> *widely* implemented. Unless there is a use case that one of the >> existing standards cannot meet (which I doubt more each time I >> consider this), I see no reason to invent anything, only to build >> tools to use what we have. >> >> Furthermore, reinventing content pushing over HTTP is a *bad* idea. >> There are several *open* and *implemented* (although less widely than >> messaging protocols) standards for pushing content *even specifically >> post or blog-type content* over HTTP. XML-RPC and AtomPub, to name >> two. >> >> (Yes, this is a variation on my "please don't invent anything" rant.) >> >> -- >> - Stephen Paul Weber (Singpolyma) >> >> Web: http://singpolyma.net/ >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/singpolyma >> IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "DiSo Project" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/diso-project?hl=en >> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- >> >> > > > -- > Chris Messina > Citizen-Participant & > Open Source Advocate-at-Large > factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org > citizenagency.com # vidoop.com > This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private >
