Why AT URIs are not valid under IETF RFC-3986, what the impact is, and some possible ways forward.
AT Protocol Primer
What is the AT Protocol and why does it matter in the grand scheme of the web
Bringing back at://
I’d also like to voice a strong dissenting opinion: a separate URI scheme follows long-standing precedent, reduces cognitive overhead and software complexity by making the transport distinction explicit, and has less ambiguous error handling. I think this direction trades short-term convenience for long-term ambiguity. The transport models are incompatible, not variants of each other Public atproto records flow through a well-understood pipeline: repos export as CAR files, relays consume fireh...
AT Protocol Handler – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox (en-US)
Download AT Protocol Handler for Firefox. AT Protocol Handler This extension lets you handle and open at:// URLs seamlessly in your browser by listing compatible sites. Originally developed for Chrome, this version supports Firefox with full protocol handler integration.
AT Protocol Handler – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox (en-US)
Download AT Protocol Handler for Firefox. AT Protocol Handler This extension lets you handle and open at:// URLs seamlessly in your browser by listing compatible sites. Originally developed for Chrome, this version supports Firefox with full protocol handler integration.
Community Spaces on AT Protocol - at:// pizza thoughts
Scaled-down design patterns
Hey #atprotodev; should we make a convention for annotating HTML elements with the AT uris they’re built with? (So that, say, a browser extension could offer links to @pds.ls) Something like this? <li typeof="schema:Thing" resource="at://did:web:example.com/org.example.lexicon/rkey">
What are you’re thoughts on making this breaking change more inclusive to any AT URI? Like for @semble.so it would be very useful to have this mapping or any webpage that has a corresponding AT record (e.g. microblogging, standard.site, steamplace videos）
My take on "The AT-URI Syntax Mess": the canonical form should be percent-encoded, and today's colon syntax should stay as a defined lax input form. Longer writeup in the forum: discourse.atprotocol.community/t/the-at-uri-syntax-mess/934/…
The AT-URI Syntax Mess
discourse.atprotocol.community
bryan newbold
this is also a thing, but separate from the basic website stuff anna is talking about. the at:// potential is sort of about navigating to that sort of URI in browser bar. but I think more realistically, having anchor links. <a atref="at://..."> (or more realistically: data-atp="at://...")
I think this breaking change for standard.site needs to become an ecosystem-wide conversation and convention. Any web page that represents a corresponding AT record needs to include a meta tag that includes that record. <meta name=“at:uri” content=“at://…” \>
rich harris
atproto/@standard.site friends: any thoughts on this issue? This... <link rel="site.standard.publication" href="at://..."> ...is invalid HTML, per html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-…, because DIDs aren't hostnames. This causes problems with some tools. Issue here: github.com/sveltejs/kit/issues/15935
If you're an #atprotodev I'd love your thoughts on this short proposal. I think we'd all benefit from a way to tag our HTML to reference the at:// uris they're derived from! @popfeed.social, @bookhive.buzz, @sifa.id, @leaflet.pub, @pckt.blog, @offprint.app and many more — penny for your thoughts?
Atproto markup for HTML
byjp.leaflet.pubSeriously mild take: ATProto web clients should serve a <link rel="alternate"> containing an at:// URI I've just opened a PR to do this on Frontpage and atproto-browser. I'd for other clients to follow along with the convention! github.com/likeandscribe/frontpage/pull/…
Add AT URIs as alternate links by tom-sherman · Pull Request #172 · likeandscribe/frontpage
github.com
