.well-known/avatar


Hot on the heels of a post I wrote 4 years ago, wouldn't it be useful to have a well-known URl for user avatar images?

When I sign up to a web service, I don't want to faff around uploading an image to use as my avatar. I want that service to look at my email address or social-sign-in and automatically pick up my preferred graphic.

Here's how I see it working.

  1. A user signs in to a service with the email address username@example.com
  2. In a similar way to WebFinger, the service makes a request to:
    • example.com/.well-known/avatar?resource=acct:username@example.com
  3. If the request's Accept header has a MIME type of image/*, then the server immediately returns an image.
  4. If the request's Accept header has a MIME type of application/json, then the server can return a WebFinger-style document with "rel":"http://webfinger.net/rel/avatar" and, perhaps, a list of different images, formats, and sizes.

This makes it incredibly simple for people to use the same avatar everywhere.

It also means that if you're designing a service which publicly shows usernames, you can make avatars available without an expensive API call. For example, Twitter could make user's avatars available at:
twitter.com/.well-known/avatars?resource=acct:edent

But what about...?

This is a sketch of an idea. I'd like to know if people think it is useful before I take it any further.

I don't think it breaches privacy - a user's image is public on all services anyway.

Users should still be given the option of changing their avatar if they want.

A service shouldn't expose the user's email address - they should proxy the image.

Anything else I should have thought of?

Updates

To stave off some common points raised.

  • No this isn't like Gravatar. That works by being a 3rd party service and using the MD5 of your email address.
  • No this isn't like Libravatar. See above.
  • No this isn't like WebFinger. That only returns JSON.
  • No this isn't like h-card. That requires a server to parse HTML in order to find an image.
  • No this isn't like BIMI. That's expensive and only supports SVG.

Share this post on…

23 thoughts on “.well-known/avatar”

    1. @edent says:

      Not really. Gravatar is a 3rd party service which uses an MD5 of your email address.
      This is designed to be a 1st party service which uses your account's name.

      Reply
  1. said on mastodon.social:

    @Edent I think the idea is cute, but some human factors might make it a bit risky for some users and (services?):

    • A user may wish to ensure a particular service account cannot be tied to their main online identity. If they sign up to Twitter as @MyUsername and also as @anonymousconfessions with two different email addresses at the same domain, they may be deanonymized if the same unique (or otherwise matchable) image is set on both accounts.

    Reply | Reply to original comment on mastodon.social
  2. said on mastodon.social:

    @Edent

    • Renaming your service (e.g. from Twitter.com to X.com) may cause the retrieved avatar to change to the wrong thing. This could conceivably reveal the email hosting domain if the 'default' image is not the same as the custom one set for the previous account identifier.

    Reply | Reply to original comment on mastodon.social
  3. said on mastodon.social:

    @Edent I wonder if giving a well-known url as you sign up is better, then you opt in to using that data rather than anonymous, perhaps even selecting what info you want used, ie perhaps more than just a profile photo.
    I do like that gravatar supports multiple emails though and optional different inages for each, but all under one account. It does expose my email matches another account potentially though, which I may not want to share

    Reply | Reply to original comment on mastodon.social
  4. Mohammad Hossein Mojtahedi says:

    what about security?
    when a user uploads a file to your site, you can, and for large-scale platforms, you should have malware detection. using .well-known, users can load bad images on your website.

    Reply
    1. @edent says:

      As I said, services should proxy the image. That way they can strip out anything untoward.

      Reply
  5. Ideally something like Libavatar/Gravatar does this piece for you so existing services can just keep working with this new idea implemented.

    Reply
  6. Kevin S says:

    <

    blockquote>"I don't think it breaches privacy"

    <

    blockquote>

    This immediately becomes an issue when someone uses it wrong. It's easy to say services should proxy the image. But some certainly will not and expose email address or other account identifier. Using a secure hash (such as SHA-2) would be a simple change that would improve the privacy greatly.

    Love the idea of using a well known URL for this purpose!

    Reply
  7. I was going to say "but what about the fact that every service has its own size for user icons" and then I re-read this and saw that point 4 says it might, perhaps, have a mode where it returns a list of multiple images/formats/sizes.

    And thinking about that makes me remember LiveJournal, which had the wonderful feature of letting you have multiple icons and the ability to pick one for each post and/or reply; nobody's ever duplicated this and I really miss the layer of meaning it added on top of plain text.

    Reply
    1. @edent says:

      Favicons generally only work for a single server. So something like a Mastodon server can't have a favicon for each user.

      With rel=icon, h-cards, and other metadata - you need to download a large chunk of HTML and then parse it. I was going for something simpler.

      Reply

What are your reckons?

All comments are moderated and may not be published immediately. Your email address will not be published.Allowed HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> <p> <pre> <br> <img src="" alt="" title="" srcset="">