+ The TL;DR of why acct URIs‽ is — +
++ … because people seem to be comfortable with something that looks more like an e-mail address or as username as an identifier but the technology only understands URLs and URIs; + so you still have to turn things that look like e-mail address and usernames into URLs and URIs; + which is what acct URI is; + and “no”, mailto URI won't work; +
+
+ … because a new URI scheme makes it easy to identify that it should be used with
+ There are many conceptual places where some kind of an identifier is a core part of it. +
++ For example, on any social protocol I am aware of, there is some type of notion of an identifier. +
++ BBS echo-mail has them. + BBS net-mail has them. + Internet e-mail has them. + Internet finger-protocol has them. + Internet gemini-protocol has them. + (Multi-User) Linux & Unix operating systems have them. + Twitter has them. + Etc. +
++ The identifier enables you to send messages, to share photos & images, to control data, etc. +
++ With a single centralized system, dealing with identifiers is comparatively more straight-forward. + But when dealing with a distributed, decentralized, or federated system, things can get more complex — for example, how do you point to and interact with someone or something from a different node on the network? + Etc. +
++ Experience (with OpenID and other systems) seems to suggest that (at least currently) most people are more comfortable with using something that looks more like an e-mail address or as username as an identifier rather than a URL or a URI. + For example — +
+
+
+ But