Rel-me
De Mi caja de notas
à traduire sur iwc:rel-me-fr
Cet article est une débauche. Vous pouvez m’aider à l'améliorer.
Utiliser rel=me sur un hyperlien indique que sa destination représente la même personne ou entité que la page en cours, ce qui est une brique de construction clé de la connexion web et d'IndieAuth. indieauth.com utilise les liens rel=me pour activer la connexion à l'intérieur de sites web tels que IndieWebCamp.com.
Voir la spécification rel-me pour plus de détails.
Pourquoi
You should add rel="me" to hyperlinks on your home page to your other profiles to enable web-sign-in and IndieAuth using your domain as your identity, rather than depending on silo sign-in methods,
It also allows distributed verification - proof that an account on one site is under the control of the same person as another site. For example, Huffduffer will follow rel="me" links to show your connected social accounts without you having to enter them individually. Another good example of this is a browser plugin built by Modèle:Kevinmarks which allows for this same kind of distributed verification.
Comment
Comment utiliser rel me
See:
How to on WordPress
See:
How to consume rel me
See:
FAQ
Should my rel-me be inside my hCard?
A: Another way of restating that is, should your rel="me" hyperlink also have class="u-url" and be inside your h-card? And the answer is:
A2: Yes it should, because it will enhance your h-card, and make it into a representative h-card, but it is not necessary for rel=me to work with indieauth.
Follow-up Q: This on my blog but it’s not actually what I use for my main indieauth, should it still be setup like that?
Follow-up A: Because it is on your blog, you're likely using that URL as your p-author h-card URL. Thus making sure it has a good representative h-card is a good idea
Can I add rel-me to non-profile pages?
You should not add rel-"me" to pages that doesn't represent the same user as the profile the rel-"me" links to.
One should only add rel-"me" to pages that is seen as representing the same user as the profile it links to. Such pages can be the home page of a single user site or the author pages of a multi user site.
rel-author is often what one wants instead when linking to a profile page from non-profile pages.
Implementations
- PHP indieweb/rel-me package has functions for getting rel=me URLs on a site, securely deriving profile URLs and securely matching silo backlinking URLs against profile URLs
- Ruby relparser.rb (part of IndieAuth) contains functions for doing the same sort of stuff
- Python relme.py (part of Ronkyuu) contains functions to discover rel=me URLs on a site, generate normative URLs for both profile and resource URLs and to confirm that a resource URL is authoritative for a given profile URL.
Connecting the dots between rel=me and relmeauth
This is my current interpretation - so people can correct and critique it rather than assert any truthiness to this.
rel=me is intended to mean that the destination represents "the same person as" the current page.
However, it also serves a dual purpose when used for RelMeAuth based authorization. Here, a rel=me link really wants to mean the destination "can claim control over" the current page. You could instead pretend there's a "rel=is-controlled-by" tag to distinguish the two contexts.
Why does this distinction matter?
A page such as github.com/kbsriram cannot (legitimately) claim a rel=me link to github.com. Clearly, the site "github.com" does not represent a "person who is the same as" github.com/kbsriram
However, the root domain on every website does control all its sub pages, so in fact, github.com/kbsriram has an implicit "rel=is-controlled-by" to github.com, but it does not have a rel=me link to github.com
This distinction matters when finding rel=me closures in the two contexts of identity consolidation and relmeauth based authorization.
To make this concrete, let's assume we have these three pages, with these rel=me links on them.
myfamily.example.com/tommy [rel=me] -> {plus.google.com/+tommy}
myfamily.example.com [rel=me] -> {plus.google.com/+tommy}
plus.google.com/+tommy [rel=me] -> {myfamily.example.com/tommy}
Context 1: Consolidating Identities
Given a page, find me all the pages who are "the same person as" the current page.
The approach is to recursively follow all the rel=me links from the starting page, and return only that subset which is within any loop of rel=me links that include the starting page.
This is so that only a group of mutually verifying pages are returned, or anyone could simply claim they were https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds by putting a rel=me link on their page.
If we started from myfamily.example.com/tommy, we'd get back
{myfamily.example.com/tommy, plus.google.com/+tommy}
as the pages who "are the same person as" myfamily.example.com/tommy
And If we started from myfamily.example.com, we'd get back just
{myfamily.example.com}
Context 2: relmeauth based login
Given an page, find me all the pages "who can control" the current page. The "current page" is used as the username, and one of the controlling pages is used to login the user, say through OAuth.
In principle (though implementations don't necessarily do this) the approach is still similar, but now there is an implicit assumption that any subpage of a domain is controlled by the bare domain.
In particular, the set of all pages "who can control" myfamily.example.com is
{myfamily.example.com, plus.google.com/+tommy, myfamily.example.com/tommy}
because of the implied link that myfamily.example.com/tommy is-controlled-by myfamily.example.com
Edge Cases
Edge cases are questions or issues brought up typically by only one (or a small number) of people, and in practice affect very few people. We document them anyway in the hopes of helping out those few, yet apart from the broader #FAQ, keeping the FAQ focused on frequently asked questions (applicable to more people in general).
What About RDFa Problems
If you use RDFa and are having problems, note that RDFa redefines 'rel' attribute processing that is incompatible with the HTML(5) standards thus rel=me may produce unexpected results inside RDFa.[1]
There is a solution available in RDFa WG mail archives http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2014Oct/0005.html
Any non-CURIE (e.g. "me") will be ignored in a @rel if there is a @property attribute in the same element. Here is what I recommend to use, which simplifies your markup as you don't need to repeat the mailto:. Drop the @rel from the ul, and use something like this:
<ul vocab="http://schema.org/"> <li> <a rel="me" property="contactPoint" typeof="ContactPoint" href="mailto: perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org"><span property="name">email (smtp)</span></a> </li> </ul>