Skip to content

Discussion: Handles #299

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wesbiggs opened this issue Apr 3, 2025 · 1 comment
Open

Discussion: Handles #299

wesbiggs opened this issue Apr 3, 2025 · 1 comment

Comments

@wesbiggs
Copy link
Member

wesbiggs commented Apr 3, 2025

Should the DSNP specification define rules and semantics of handles? Currently, handles are left as a DSNP system-specific concern, see for example Frequency's handle system. Non-DSNP systems have different approaches to handles, such as DNS-rooted handles in AT Protocol.

What is the minimal level of specification within DSNP that would bring handles into the protocol?

  • Should handles be required to be universally unique addresses?
  • Can a universal namespace for handles be mandated without an assumption of there being a single consensus system?
  • Can the specification support a plurality of implementation approaches to handles?
  • Where do handles come into play in the spec? (Activity Content Note, Profile?)
@wesbiggs
Copy link
Member Author

wesbiggs commented Apr 3, 2025

Community discussion 2025-04-03:

  • Review of Frequency implementation
  • Possibility of allowing non-suffix handles for trademark holders? Similar challenges to what ICANN faces with domain names
  • Domain-based approaches change dynamics from non-transferable to transferable; subdomain-based approaches require an intermediary controller (the domain owner)
  • Usability/safety concerns like homoglyph protection
  • Interaction with local authorities on legal trademark ownership etc.
  • Possibility of some discovery via DNS (e.g. cocacola.com can assert their handle through TXT records or .well-known files)

Should handles be in the spec?

  • Handles are themselves a form of speech/communication

  • Inclusivity of Unicode languages is a key principle, this could be a guideline even without specifying handle generation syntax

  • Important to not view through a US-centric lens

  • Perhaps handle systems are optional: "If you have a handle system, then ..." e.g. (1) must be unique, (2) must allow known language characters...

  • May have an optional operation "get handle for User Id"

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant