I come from a background of addressing ancient issues in knowledge management platforms that were a spaghetti of interdependent modules coupled together by a custom implementation of socks and soap apis. I am not usually in the boat of being told no, because nearly anything I proposed was an improvement on the existing architecture. Some of that may have put me into a mindset that makes me overly optimistic about my position on items. I do respect your work and contributions. I just also see the world differently and it is usually a strong point for me. What I want is a primary nostr id for users to do the normal everyday social items, with the ability to add niche support for other activities the are also nostr based but not exclusively social networking, but kind of are. One major use case is that I will be running several domains and I want many nip-05s for those to easily manage from one npub, but also the ability to implement similar for the user base to be able to easily manage and find other users of the platforms when the identify by other nip-05 ids outside of the ecosystem they found each other. Like finding someone from Xbox live/psn on Facebook or x. What I am picturing is a profile setup where this is widely adopted and accepted to foster inter operation without a lot of overhead or reliance on rarely adopted nips. I want users to be able to jump on my ui or primal or Damus or any other platform that handles the profile data and search and be able to easily drop a handle in and locate their buddy. As this is already a feature for one id, I do not see the harm in them being grouped in a more attractive profile area like nip-05 vs something that seems more related to legacy providers that have no intention of adopting nostr in the near term like the support for GitHub, instagram, facebook, x and similar. I also think that there are many many other use cases that will emerge, given the opportunity to use the concept, but I cannot say I have any idea what they may be until I see what people come up with. I hope that helps to clarify why I am so positioned on trying to get it as an optional parameter in nip-05 over the nip-39.