On 18. Mai 2014 04:59:03 MESZ, Ofer Inbar <cos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >The Internet isn't just for everyone to use, but also, the Internet is >for all of its "users" to *develop*. The Internet is for participants. ACK, but exactly these and similiar terms remembers me about the "Web 2.0" pseudo-paradigm with which "IT-analysts" and "experts" tried to make us happy some years ago, but the result was a new set of centralized, proprietary internet services like the "social media" gigants which - by the end of the day - made connectivity between peoples not easier nor flexible at all. Why i.e. in 2014 it is still not possible for users to have just "one" data record as their "primary internet address" on their i.e. business card (and this while having full freedom about where/on which server/provider having which service or part of service - i.e. in the old "fashioned" form of user@host (like in Email)? By RFCs and i.e. DNS infrastructure there still ARE enough open standards / protocols allowing (simplified) to "phone" or "talk" (SIP/RTP, XMPP etc.), to "email" (SMTP), to "publish content" (HTTP, FTP, DAV etc.) or even "authenticate"/"sign" and much more over the same "address" and but by practice most of that lacks of realized interoperability of systems (i.e. most phones - devices and networks - still did not allow to input / process alphanumerics), XMPP is in a minor market position and "SIP is not SIP". The DNS still offers features covering most of such an "address resolution" but not all client software can handle DNS so far. The "web 2.0" aera brought "single points of contacts" for users, but most users have more then a hand full of different "contact addresses", URIs to "be reachable" for different audiences of different customers of different service providers. A business card is as long as never before in many situations. Is'nt that "crazy"? A similiar situation we have in the widely proprietary "internet search market" where we was "going away" from former (and outdated) protocols/standards without something new, leaded to a oligopolized commercial search infrastructure and it could'nt be a "solution" to have more and more web spiders/robots running each web site or internet ressources, generating more and more overhead for more and more data redundancy in practice (tried to concept a open "solution" on http://www.seeky.org some times ago with a couple of colleagues). What i want to say here: There is a lot of further potential even in "old" and sometimes called "outdated" standards which we did not used in their full potential. On the other hand slightly standard extensions could offer a huge amount of user flexibility/freedom and ergonomics in practice for any user. Just my two cents... best regards, Niels -- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT&Internet http://www.syndicat.com