Post

Jack
@jackvalinsky.com

what about adding a "private" type to lexicons to avoid another uri scheme? is that a bad idea?

0 reposts0 likes

Evelyn
@kandake.africa

It breaks the protocol in a way as yhen every developer needs to define a new set of lexicons that would structurally be identical.

daniel holmgren 🫠
@dholms.at

lexicons could be updated to be tolerant to use a string format that's tolerant to both at & space uris but yeah lexicon authors would then have the ability to basically decide if a record is meant for public/permissioned/both

Evelyn
@kandake.africa

That's sort of where I arrived while figuring out what adding arbitrary lexicons to stratos would look like, the most flexible option was simply denoting some form of attribute that could declare that.

Jack
@jackvalinsky.com

so the idea is that a if it's under a different uri than you can reuse lexicons but it resolves the data differently?

Evelyn
@kandake.africa

I personally don't think a new URI is even needed as it's addressing at the end of the day which can inherently indicate if it's private. I'm still seeing this as a protocol extension rather than new protocol

Jack
@jackvalinsky.com

I'm assuming that adding a new uri also introduces new headaches for the working group/people working on standards?