19 ms·
No reason cards couldn't have URIs (IMO they must have them). That doesn't stop pages aggregating them.
by dreamfactory 13y ago
No reason cards couldn't have URIs (IMO they must have them). That doesn't stop pages aggregating them.
- noblethrasher 13y agoTrue, but those URIs probably won’t be easily accessible to end users. I am not against “cards” per se, but I am worried about what the “appification” of the Internet portends. The web put most of the intelligence in the nodes rather than the network (in contrast to, say, cable television). Apps are reversing that. Now if I want to share content, I can no longer easily do so without the network(s) knowing about it. Intelligent networks scare me. One more thing about disjunctions vs. conjunctions: the former is about random access whereas the latter is about sequential access. Sequentially accessed stuff is consumed by streaming. So I am afraid that what we are going to end up with are a bunch of domain names/apps that correspond to streams; or in other words, cable TV 2.0.
- dreamfactory 13y agoThink I'm looking at this differently - as breaking down the granularity of a page. If you standardised on a card API it wouldn't quite be a web of things but takes you in that direction. Something like RSS/Atom but less general and oriented to individual items rather than lists, with a richer data model. That content is then available to pages and apps equally and could maybe help against the walled garden effect.
- TheZenPsycho 13y agoMaybe I've missed something huge, but having a URL is a central part of- at the very least, twitter's cards. The scenario is, user posts a link to the New York Times on twitter (as they do), the new york times has some level of control over the automatically generated preview that appears next to that tweet on twitter.