privacy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Privacy and microformats (discussion? resources?)) |
(solve simpler problems first) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
use microformats on a ''private'' scale. Does it really make sense? | use microformats on a ''private'' scale. Does it really make sense? | ||
I'm wondering aloud. Please comment. | I'm wondering aloud. Please comment. | ||
* In [[microformats]] one of our [[principles]] is to solve simpler problems first. Thus first we are solving the problem of public [[social-network-portability]] which really only requires [[hcard|hCard]] and [[xfn|XFN]]. For private authenticated access, the next steps are [[openid]] and [[oauth]]. And of course there is a plenty of "private web" supported today using HTTP, HTTP-AUTH, HTTPS - it makes sense to leverage those, rather than needlessly reinvent them. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 18:47, 6 Sep 2007 (PDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:47, 7 September 2007
Privacy and microformats
<lynX> It's the one thing you can't do with microformats, right? Or rather.. the web, the HTTP protocol, you'd first need to have a private web where we publish things just for our friends or our social network applications to implement the social-network-portability thing. Only then can we use microformats on a private scale. Does it really make sense? I'm wondering aloud. Please comment.
- In microformats one of our principles is to solve simpler problems first. Thus first we are solving the problem of public social-network-portability which really only requires hCard and XFN. For private authenticated access, the next steps are openid and oauth. And of course there is a plenty of "private web" supported today using HTTP, HTTP-AUTH, HTTPS - it makes sense to leverage those, rather than needlessly reinvent them. Tantek 18:47, 6 Sep 2007 (PDT)