Olá Dan e a todos. On Saturday 29 August 2009 08:57:58 Dan Brickley wrote: > > The "dockable" proposal is simple: let users do more things with > domain names that they own and control, and at per-user granularity so > that sites can be a lifelong thing. > > I'd like my photo URLs at http://photos.danbri.org or > http://flickr.danbri.org, rather than at http://flickr.com, however > much I love Flickr. I'd like my music profile and playlists to be at > http://music.danbri.org/ instead of at http://last.fm/danbri, and I'd > to be able to microblog using http://status.danbri.org/ rather than > http://identi.ca/danbri. A metaphor here is "dockable", in the sense > that these pieces of my Web presence are a bit like boats on the > unpredictable seas of the Internet (see also http://xkcd.com/256/). > When a boat is docked in a harbour, eg. my photo "boat" has been > docked in Flickr Bay for some years now, then it can make use of all > kinds of useful, life-improving services - electricity, access to > toilets, clean water, food, people to hang out with, wifi and dry > land. At Flickr I get to benefit from the great community tools, giant > image-hosting servers, friendly community, tagging, annotation, search > and mapping tools, etc. And I know I could leave with all my data at > any time; but could I leave with a working Web site that - with some > loss of functionality, sure - could be moved elsewhere and just keep > working? Not yet. > > Being "docked" - online or off - has many advantages, so many that in > the real world, undocking and moving your boat elsewhere can be a big > hassle. I've lived in Bristol and Amsterdam, where many boats stay > comfortably docked for years. But you can do it, you can undock a > boat, patch up the holes, detach cables, wires and other local > services, and set out to sea, or to find another place to dock that > suits you better. The freedom of movement and freedom of choice issues > aren't so different on the Web. For example - with various changes at > Yahoo, I'm wondering how many more years I'll keep my photos at > Flickr. I know I can get my data out; they have nice APIs, and there > is the Net::Flickr::Backup tool even which exports everything in RDF. > The problem isn't really the data, its the identifiers and links that > make the Web a *Web*. My photos profile page, the URL for each photo > and page wrapping each photo; all of these are at flickr.com URLs. For > websites to be as dockable as boats, site users/owners need control of > the domain names that are at the heart of the URLs for each page.
I really like your idea and i share your principles too. I've been waiting for a proper OMB spec (0.2??) to get an account on status.net with my own domain, but i think thats more oriented to self purposed groups then a single user. It would be great if we really could have DNS entries per user, for our profiles, so identi.ca/bugabundo (aka bugabundo.identi.ca) could then be cnamed for micro.bugabundo.net. Many other sites do this (blogger, posterous, etc). What do you think Evan? I know this would mean lots of changes to internal DNS, but would be soooooo cool to have this, even if it is Premium. -- Hi, I'm BUGabundo, and I am Ubuntu (whyubuntu.com) (``-_-´´) http://LinuxNoDEI.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786 GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB http://BUGabundo.net
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Laconica-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
