I subscribe entirely to the IndieWeb principles both you and Henrik outline in your microcasts, but I think there’s a problem or two.
1. You both intimated that the technical elements are simply too darned hard. I agree, especially for the average web user, who then becomes trapped between a rock and a hard place.
2. I appreciate that it makes perfect sense having one’s content under one’s control, then cross-linking between other content to which one might refer, but boy can that make for a fractured experience. If I have to read something, then I’m stuck to some artefact, whether that’s printed or a screen. The digital workflow is better (I think) because I can read one article, then click quickly to the next; and if I’m ‘connected,’ then I can do that wherever I am. In analogue form, if I’m reading an article and find a reference to another, then I’ve somehow got to get hold of that before reading on. My audio listening workflow though is rather different; I tend to listen for extended periods of time whilst doing something else. Clicking between different sites would be quite disruptive. What would be much better, from my selfish point of view, would be for the audio to remain under control of the producers, but for the various constituent parts to be aggregated and arranged into a coherent whole *in a single place* where I can draw down a single assembled instance … like the Anchor output.
The one thing I have learned over the years is to become comfortable (usually!) with compromising.
(PS. Sorry about the use of ‘one’s’ and ‘one’ above. It seemed less directed than ‘your’s’ and ‘your,’ but also made me sound up myself.)