From: Eric Wong Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 07:20:49 GMT Subject: Re: Thank you for public-inbox! Message-ID: <20180830072049.dgsjn3537xzo6qcm@dcvr> In-Reply-To: <20180830033000.GD665@sigill.intra.peff.net> Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:02:43AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > Anyways I hope to teach public-inbox to auto-linkify Message-ID-looking > > strings "" into URLs for domain-portability, > > (but it's ambiguous with email addresses). But yeah, I don't > > like things being tied to domain names. > > That would be neat, but I think it actually makes references less useful > in a lot of cases. URLs are universally understood, which means: > > - people who don't know about public-inbox can just follow the link > (and in fact, that's how they learn how useful it is!) > > - even for people who do know about it, they are likely to read mails > in their MUA. And most MUAs have some mechanism for easily following > a URL, but won't know how to auto-linkify a message-id. Heh, one of the (unstated?) goals of public-inbox is to educate the users on how Message-IDs (and email in general) works. And to that end... > So I too dream of a world where I can say "give me more information on > this identifier" and my tools search a peer to peer distributed hash > table for it. But I don't think we live in that world yet. ....More than dreaming, our goal should be to BUILD such a world :> After all, it was my intense dislike of centralization which drew me to DVCS and git in the first place. > At the very least, I think if we plan to reference without an http URL > that we would use something like URI-ish, like . That gives > tools a better chance to say "OK, I know how to find message-ids" > (though I still think that it's much less helpful out of the box > compared to an http URL). That would be awesome if somelike like could be a standard and adopted (likewise with ). I haven't checked, but are there existing/similar RFCs? Surely somebody has tried to get adopted by now, right?