FEP-2c59: Discovery of a Webfinger address from an ActivityPub actor

[silverpill]

The meaning of alsoKnownAs property is not well-defined. In my opinion, it should be used to describe different resources linked to the same entity (example: two actors representing the same person), this is how Mastodon uses it and how it is used in FEP-c390.

it shouldn’t be used to describe different identifiers of the same resource (e.g. actor ID and a corresponding acct URI), for that I’m proposing aliases property (in FEP-ef61).

Related discussions:

Defining alsoKnownAs

i can’t help but feel we’ve not really solved the issue while going ahead and formalizing it. the problem as i see it is that mastodon et al’s usage of alsoKnownAs follows nightpool’s “concept 2” (different actors for the same logical person), whereas the DID usage follows “concept 1” (different representations for this actor) if the intent is indeed “concept 2”, then a rel-me approach would have been better. we might mark up an attachment Link on the actor like so: attachment: - type:…

alsoKnownAs and acct:

I was thinking about fep-612d actors via dns, and how to tie it into the actor object. So acct is a valid uri scheme, so I would like to adapt my actor object to include "alsoKnownAs": ["acct:helge@mymath.rocks", "acct:mymath.rocks"], This would demystify a lot of the webfinger etc stuff, as the link actor → account is made explicit. Is there any issue that might arise from this?