silverpillWhat #WebFinger address format should Forgejo use for its federated repositories?
| @repo@organization@server | |
| @organization/repo@server | |
| @repo+organization@server | |
| @repo@server |
Poll ends at .
blaine
@silverpill eh, that's just some stuff we made up. The @-prefix isn't in there either (that's a mastodon-ism), and per the acct doc that Peter wrote, neither "/" nor "@" are allowed in the user part, either.
I'd go with something that makes semantic sense for users and worry about standards later.
Beady Belle Fanchannel@blaine @silverpill I think that's a bad idea, cutting off the second part to generate a webfinger URL is common practice
@reiver ā¼ (Charles) 
@reiver @blaine Obj URIs seem to be equivalent to 'ap' URIs with did:web authority
obj:[email protected]/file.ext
==
ap://did:web:example.com:bahmankas/file.ext
marius@silverpill with the risk of repeating myself: the organization should be the server!11
@mariusor So, the 4th option?
This is probably not realistic, because when you fork from upstream/repo to your/repo, a new repository actor should be created.
@silverpill don't really take my hot take seriously on this one. My opinion of "the group should be the server" is mostly related to communities on link aggregators... :D
tesaguri š¦š¦@silverpill Voted for the first option (the double-at form appears as an example in the `acct:` URI scheme RFC, so it seems to be the easiest sigil to persuade other impls to accept), but Iād vote for `[email protected]` if DDNS is applicable.