IRC log of social on 2014-10-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:59:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
16:59:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:59:42 [Arnaud]
I put a strawman schedule
16:59:44 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:59:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
16:59:46 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:59:46 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
16:59:47 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:59:47 [trackbot]
Date: 21 October 2014
16:59:56 [evanpro]
chair: evanpro
17:00:05 [oshepherd]
Oh, I'm just slightly early for a change :)
17:00:11 [evanpro]
17:00:13 [Arnaud]
so, we need to merge the two :)
17:00:22 [evanpro]
Zakim, who's on the call?
17:00:22 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, evanpro
17:00:23 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, jasnell, oshepherd, elf-pavlik, evanpro, Tsyesika, jtauber, Loqi, tantek, AdamB, cmhobbs, Arnaud, shepazu, KevinMarks, cwebber2, rhiaro, wilkie, bret,
17:00:23 [Zakim]
... tommorris, kylewm, mattl, aaronpk, trackbot, botie, sandro, wseltzer
17:00:32 [evanpro]
17:00:33 [evanpro]
17:00:43 [cwebber2]
I think I'm in
17:01:00 [jtauber]
Zakim, what's the code?
17:01:00 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, jtauber
17:01:14 [oshepherd]
No hello/goodbye notifications?
17:01:29 [tommorris]
Apologies for absence: been feeling sub-par as a result of continuing medical treatment.
17:01:33 [evanpro]
Arnaud: that's such a better structure
17:01:43 [evanpro]
Let me see if I can copy that over
17:02:11 [evanpro]
Probably not quickly
17:02:13 [Arnaud]
zakim, this is socl
17:02:13 [Zakim]
ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
17:02:26 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
17:02:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.514.554.aaaa, jasnell, ??P5, Arnaud, ??P7, [IPcaller], AdamB
17:02:34 [evanpro]
Zakim, aaaa is me
17:02:34 [Zakim]
+evanpro; got it
17:02:37 [Zakim]
17:02:46 [jtauber]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:02:46 [Zakim]
+jtauber; got it
17:02:49 [bret]
Zakim, ??P10 is me
17:02:49 [Zakim]
+bret; got it
17:02:58 [bret]
(I think)
17:03:05 [jasnell]
fyi... laptop battery likely not going to last the full hour.. may end up dropping off irc at some point... we will see tho
17:03:06 [Zakim]
17:03:17 [jasnell]
wow.. that's super irritating
17:03:20 [Zakim]
17:03:23 [cwebber2]
Zakim: , ??P5 is me
17:03:26 [cwebber2]
17:03:26 [evanpro]
Whoever is leaning on their phone, PLEASE STOP
17:03:29 [cwebber2]
Zakim, ??P5 is me
17:03:29 [Zakim]
+cwebber2; got it
17:03:38 [Zakim]
17:03:39 [evanpro]
Zakim, who's on the call?
17:03:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see evanpro, jasnell, cwebber2, Arnaud, jtauber, AdamB, bret, oshepherd, [IPcaller]
17:03:41 [MarkCrawford]
MarkCrawford has joined #social
17:03:43 [wilkie]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
17:03:43 [Zakim]
+wilkie; got it
17:03:49 [cwebber2]
honk honk
17:03:50 [bret]
Zakim, mute me
17:03:50 [Zakim]
bret should now be muted
17:04:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.670.aabb
17:04:33 [Zakim]
17:04:46 [evanpro]
17:05:08 [MarkCrawford]
Zakim, +1.703.670.0920 is me
17:05:08 [Zakim]
sorry, MarkCrawford, I do not recognize a party named '+1.703.670.0920'
17:05:14 [evanpro]
Zakim, who's on the call?
17:05:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see evanpro, jasnell, cwebber2, Arnaud, jtauber, AdamB, bret (muted), wilkie, +1.703.670.aabb
17:05:34 [evanpro]
AdamB, would you mind scribing?
17:05:37 [MarkCrawford]
zakim, +1.703.670.aabb is me
17:05:37 [Zakim]
+MarkCrawford; got it
17:05:40 [Zakim]
17:05:44 [evanpro]
scribe: AdamB
17:05:56 [Zakim]
17:06:06 [AdamB]
evan: first item approving last weeks minutes
17:06:16 [evanpro]
17:06:37 [AdamB]
...pretty important resolutions in the minutes ....
17:06:41 [harry]
harry has joined #social
17:06:47 [AdamB]
... any objections to approving?
17:06:59 [AdamB]
.... minutes have been approved
17:07:14 [Lloyd_Fassett]
Lloyd_Fassett has joined #social
17:07:42 [AdamB]
RESOLVED: Approval of Minutes of 14 October 2014
17:08:02 [AdamB]
evan: like to talk about upcoming face to face ... unfortunately have 2 diff schedules
17:08:17 [AdamB]
... will use Arnaud version
17:08:24 [Arnaud]
17:08:28 [Zakim]
17:08:35 [Arnaud]
ack ??P5
17:08:35 [AdamB]
.... first covering overall direction as a group, where we are going
17:08:38 [tantek]
Zakim, ??P16 is me
17:08:38 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
17:08:47 [AdamB]
... discussing AS 2.0 and moving that forward
17:09:06 [evanpro]
ack Arnaud
17:09:07 [AdamB]
.... new efforts coming up around Social API and Federation protocol ... F2F best time to discuss those
17:10:09 [AdamB]
Arnaud: first would like to ask people ...schedule of tpac provides 11am to 5pm for adhoc group breakouts ... put together on F2F page for two possible options to choose from
17:10:32 [tantek]
agreed that f2f is a good time to discuss API and federation protocol work
17:10:51 [AdamB]
... ... as a working group we should decide our approach ... on that list is straw man to start discussion
17:11:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.335.aacc
17:11:51 [AdamB]
... think we should choose between these 2 options
17:12:08 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: any news from OpenSocial?
17:12:37 [AdamB]
... could mix for example, could do option 1 on monday and option 2 on tuesday
17:12:45 [tantek]
I am also participating in the AC meeting as an AB member. So would prefer not to conflict with that.
17:12:57 [AdamB]
evan: one way to max. productivity by taking first day to address 3 major goals of this group
17:13:22 [AdamB]
... if conversation goes well on monday will likely have tuesday then to do more break out sessions
17:13:44 [AdamB]
evan: suggesting option 1 on monday and 2 on tuesday
17:13:52 [tantek]
Option 1 on Monday, and Option 2 on Tuesday works for me too
17:14:13 [tantek]
I would drop "WG Dinner" since usually that's a good time for cross-group pollination
17:14:23 [Shane]
Shane has joined #social
17:14:38 [jkorho]
jkorho has joined #social
17:14:56 [AdamB]
proposal of: option 1 on monday and tuesday do more break out sessions during the mid day break
17:15:00 [elf-pavlik]
17:15:03 [evanpro]
17:15:05 [jasnell]
17:15:06 [wilkie]
17:15:09 [jtauber]
17:15:10 [bret]
17:15:16 [tantek]
+1 with including federation protocol on Monday, and no WG Dinners
17:15:30 [elf-pavlik]
17:15:35 [MarkCrawford]
17:15:41 [cwebber2]
I'm abstaining from all the TPAC votes since I won't be there ;)
17:15:45 [Zakim]
17:15:47 [harry]
harry has joined #social
17:15:51 [Zakim]
17:15:55 [evanpro]
Zakim, q?
17:15:55 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
17:16:16 [MarkCrawford]
WG dinner on Monday or Tuesday?
17:16:21 [harry]
Zakim, what's the code?
17:16:21 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, harry
17:16:27 [Zakim]
17:16:33 [MarkCrawford]
Tuesday is AC dinner
17:16:33 [Shane]
Zakim, ??P18 is me
17:16:33 [Zakim]
+Shane; got it
17:16:36 [Shane]
Zakim, mute me
17:16:36 [Zakim]
Shane should now be muted
17:16:40 [harry]
Monday would work!
17:16:41 [Zakim]
17:16:45 [Zakim]
17:16:45 [Shane]
Hi all, sorry I'm late
17:16:50 [Zakim]
17:16:57 [harry]
Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
17:16:57 [Zakim]
+hhalpin; got it
17:17:03 [tantek]
Tuesday has AC dinner that Arnaud (and Tantek) will attend
17:17:33 [tantek]
can we have a quick poll of who where in IRC will be at TPAC and which days?
17:17:35 [tantek]
17:17:39 [tantek]
17:17:43 [AdamB]
evan: given this structure can we break up the day on monday in to 3 blocks
17:17:57 [harry]
17:18:05 [MarkCrawford]
17:18:06 [rhiaro]
17:18:31 [AdamB]
17:19:06 [AdamB]
evan: are ok with leaving agenda for day 2 relatively open and putting that together at the end of day 1
17:19:09 [MarkCrawford]
Can we have some time for use case presentation from the SocialIG?
17:19:15 [AdamB]
arnaud: seems to make sense
17:19:53 [AdamB]
evan: some have been discussing proposals ... this is the optimal time to start making suggestions for presentations etc
17:20:14 [AdamB]
... asking that folks that are willing to do that to post to the email list and will fit in to those slots on afternoon of monday
17:20:25 [harry]
Notes that Matt Marum isn't on the call - not sure who from OpenSocial is presenting their take on things
17:20:26 [AdamB]
... 5-10 minute presentations
17:20:30 [oshepherd]
I have a proposal I'll email in this week (but unfortunately can't attend TPAC)
17:20:40 [evanpro]
oshepherd: that sounds great
17:20:43 [tantek]
can we skip email middleman and just edit wiki schedule directly to add ourselves?
17:20:47 [harry]
Zakim, who's making noise?
17:20:52 [evanpro]
tantek: yes, that's fine
17:21:02 [Zakim]
harry, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (28%)
17:21:06 [elf-pavlik]
harry, anyone from OpenSocial in ?
17:21:09 [MarkCrawford]
17:21:19 [evanpro]
ack MarkCrawford
17:21:24 [AdamB]
arnaud: referencing marks question about giving some time to social IG use cases
17:21:36 [Arnaud]
TPAC attendance: All week
17:21:54 [AdamB]
MarkCrawford: have narrowed down the use cases ... continuing to work them ... would like to share them to the WG
17:22:07 [AdamB]
... important for us in the IG to report back on where we stand at this point
17:22:23 [AdamB]
evan: sounds great, make time on tuesday morning on that?
17:22:49 [AdamB]
MarkCrawford: that should work, schedule around use case task force leader availability
17:23:02 [AdamB]
evan: lets plan on tuesday barring any objections
17:23:05 [Arnaud]
17:23:10 [MarkCrawford]
17:23:13 [evanpro]
ack Arnaud
17:23:35 [KevinMarks]
I may be remote too
17:23:36 [AdamB]
Arnaud: remote participation .. elf and shane remote is all right now? are there others planning to call in?
17:23:39 [oshepherd]
I might try and call in - haven't had time to look at timing yet
17:23:45 [Shane]
I've not checked the times yet for whether I can remote, I think there will be issues with timezones, but we shall we
17:23:46 [Shane]
17:24:11 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: who will participate on Wed in and Social WG?
17:24:15 [AdamB]
Harry: all the rooms have polyphones ... can put a bridge booking request in now
17:24:30 [tantek]
q+ to also offer broadcasting AV with for remote particpants to listen/watch
17:24:57 [evanpro]
ack tantek
17:24:57 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to also offer broadcasting AV with for remote particpants to listen/watch
17:25:07 [AdamB]
evan: sounding like a general framework and with the chairs can resovle the schedule
17:25:25 [AdamB]
tantek: think its fine to just add directly to wiki
17:25:53 [cwebber2]
that'd be great
17:25:55 [AdamB]
... for remote participation I can setup a audio/video broadcast using Talkie RTC session
17:25:56 [KevinMarks]
17:25:59 [Loqi]
talky has 3 karma
17:26:06 [AdamB]
evan: will be able to show screen?
17:26:07 [Shane]
Yeah talky has show screen
17:26:27 [AdamB]
tantek: it can pick from multiple inputs
17:26:31 [Zakim]
17:26:33 [elf-pavlik]
talky sounds great!
17:26:37 [Zakim]
17:26:38 [AdamB]
..including screen share
17:26:43 [harry]
KevinMarks, I can't find your W3C account.
17:26:50 [AdamB]
waht about the network issues ?
17:26:50 [harry]
Do you have one?
17:26:50 [harry]
A user-name?
17:26:56 [AdamB]
slow network?
17:27:20 [AdamB]
tantek: also setup an etherpad (sp?) especially if we start doing breakouts
17:27:31 [AdamB]
... can be hard to follow IRC
17:27:38 [Shane]
During indiewebcamps etherpads have been extremely useful
17:27:45 [AdamB]
evan: sounds great, lets do both
17:27:54 [evanpro]
ack elf-pavlik
17:27:54 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss who will participate on Wed in and Social WG?
17:27:57 [elf-pavlik]
17:28:23 [AdamB]
tantek: this is all in addition to IRC
17:28:44 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #social
17:28:49 [KevinMarks]
kmarks2 is apparently my username, but when I try to reset I get stuck
17:29:33 [AdamB]
harry: in response to elf-pavlik question .... breakout session on wednesday to talk about and Social WG
17:29:49 [KevinMarks]
I'm happy to start a new account but it didn't like me trying that with an email it had seen (
17:30:02 [AdamB]
evan: I will be there
17:30:22 [AdamB]
... def some coordination needed there
17:30:36 [elf-pavlik]
evan: could you add yourself to that section in a wiki?
17:30:52 [AdamB]
harry: its an open space 1hr session. good to be there from beginning but can drop in at any time
17:30:53 [tantek]
q+ to advocate asking for folks to join the SocialWG
17:31:05 [elf-pavlik]
17:31:17 [AdamB]
arnaud: tpac registry is officially closed but can register on site
17:31:34 [bret]
oh wow
17:31:49 [harry]
Note we are running at capacity
17:31:49 [cwebber2]
guess for sure doing remote participation then now :)
17:31:54 [AdamB]
harry: our social group space is completely booked
17:32:04 [harry]
However, some folks who are "observers" won't show
17:32:19 [tantek]
Zakim, who is being noisy?
17:32:19 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, tantek.
17:32:24 [evanpro]
Probably me!
17:32:24 [harry]
Zakim, who's making noise?
17:32:37 [Zakim]
harry, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: hhalpin (71%)
17:32:48 [AdamB]
harry: space is booked because of observers ... members have priority over them
17:33:20 [harry]
Also, speaking of WG members, I'm trying to double-check IEs - one of chairs, e-mail me the list of folks that need to be approved so I can double-check?
17:33:26 [tantek]
17:33:33 [evanpro]
ack tantek
17:33:33 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to advocate asking for folks to join the SocialWG
17:34:06 [harry]
For meeting, please add name to wiki here:
17:34:09 [harry]
17:34:09 [AdamB]
tantek: regarding about participation ...since we are full for monday and tuesday if you are attending as observer please join as member
17:34:31 [harry]
Actually, I suspect Ralph Swick will be leading, but I proposed
17:34:45 [AdamB]
... for folks that do plan on wednesday session about schema and social wg .. for those attending from social wg strongly encourage them to join
17:35:08 [evanpro]
17:35:15 [harry]
17:35:32 [AdamB]
evan: this wraps up tpac conversation
17:35:33 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
17:35:33 [tantek]
encourage them to join *the Social WG*, so that we don't have to do discussions in side-meetings.
17:35:39 [AdamB]
... next want to talk about AS 2.0 working draft
17:35:47 [harry]
17:36:05 [Zakim]
17:36:07 [evanpro]
OK, harry, will ack in a moment after jasnell
17:36:24 [AdamB]
jasnell: first cut working draft are in and been working with harry fixing up details on html validation. hopefully those are resolved
17:36:25 [Zakim]
17:36:31 [AdamB]
... one question about the Actions draft
17:36:31 [Arnaud]
if you're not registered but plan to attend, please add your name to
17:36:41 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re Reference issues inline in the spec.
17:36:41 [harry]
Its kinda weird to hold on actions since the drafts are very interlinked.
17:36:55 [AdamB]
... way the docs are right now the first public working draft points to the editor draft
17:36:56 [harry]
Zakim, who's making noise?
17:37:08 [Zakim]
harry, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: evanpro (34%), jasnell (100%)
17:37:18 [evanpro]
Sorry, other people in my office
17:37:20 [AdamB]
I missed the question
17:37:22 [tantek]
has anything changed re: the questions asked last week about Actions?
17:37:23 [AdamB]
due to noise
17:37:31 [tantek]
if no new information, let's not re-open the question
17:37:57 [AdamB]
harry: still trying to aim for thursday pub date ... because all 3 drafts are linking to each other the linking validation fails
17:38:08 [tantek]
the AS and vocab drafts shouldn't need to link to Actions - this doesn't make sense
17:38:13 [AdamB]
... wouldn't be good to publish all 3 together would have re-write links
17:38:15 [Arnaud]
the question is whether we can publish Actions draft along with AS 2.0 Core and Vocab
17:38:21 [KevinMarks]
I am logged in now, but boy that was hard
17:38:38 [elf-pavlik]
tantek, core has section on PotentialAction which uses terms from Actions Vocab
17:38:43 [tantek]
using pub process as an excuse to publish a previously unapproved draft is kind of bad form
17:38:56 [tantek]
so drop the crosslinks to Actions
17:38:59 [AdamB]
... in terms of just pure publication have them heavily linked and not on w3c space makes publishing little bit trickier
17:39:00 [tantek]
just comment them out
17:39:11 [tantek]
substantial reasons / questions - all in last week's minutes
17:39:23 [tantek]
no implementation experience with Actions
17:39:27 [harry]
The problem is everything is densely interlinked so we have to do changes to drafts.
17:39:39 [tantek]
it was a bunch of political +1s with no pragmatic questions asked
17:39:42 [elf-pavlik]
just remove PotentialAction section?
17:39:45 [AdamB]
jasnell: actions piece is still an open question ... def. interesting in working on but was missing clear use cases so objection was raised due to that
17:39:55 [AdamB]
arnaud: minutes from last week show that clearly
17:39:56 [evanpro]
Zakim, q?
17:39:56 [Zakim]
I see harry, elf-pavlik on the speaker queue
17:40:20 [elf-pavlik]
s/remove/move to dedicated spec/
17:40:21 [AdamB]
... there is interest in group but non documented yet
17:40:22 [Loqi]
elf-pavlik meant to say: just move to dedicated spec PotentialAction section?
17:40:32 [AdamB]
jasnell: base on that we don't have documented ones for AS either
17:40:50 [MarkCrawford]
implementations are not necessary until we get further along
17:41:06 [tantek]
why not just cut everything to do with Action from the first two drafts?
17:41:10 [harry]
Sorry, W3C team publishing requires links to resolve
17:41:13 [tantek]
is such commenting out more than 5 min of work?!?
17:41:13 [elf-pavlik]
+1 tantek
17:41:18 [AdamB]
jasnell: does look to be a public link issues from publishing perspective
17:41:18 [harry]
and doesn't do fragment id links
17:41:29 [harry]
So, we can just remove links to Actions Drafts
17:41:34 [harry]
that's fine with me, it may delay things a bit.
17:41:45 [KevinMarks]
+1 on links having to resolve
17:41:45 [AdamB]
... could just publish with actions but that still doesn't commit the wg to do anything with it
17:41:47 [evanpro]
ack harry
17:41:49 [tantek]
harry - why does a 5 minute commenting-out task delay things?
17:41:49 [harry]
Or we can put a weird snapshot of the Editors Draft somewhere outside
17:42:02 [bret]
Shouldn't use cases be examples where there exists some kind of implementation, standardized or not?
17:42:11 [tantek]
we're spending more time talking about it than it would take to comment out the links
17:42:13 [bret]
not just, ideas
17:42:27 [AdamB]
harry: we hit a hitch in w3c because of the links not resolving .. in general want them to resolve properly
17:42:39 [AdamB]
... it might slow things down past thursday
17:42:52 [AdamB]
evan: is it reasonable to kick out actions for the first version
17:42:59 [harry]
17:43:08 [AdamB]
jasnell: could do that .. basic actions has been in AS since the begining
17:43:14 [Shane]
That makes sense to me
17:43:17 [AdamB]
... could do that if that is what this group wants
17:43:29 [elf-pavlik]
+1 move actions to dedicated spec
17:43:37 [MarkCrawford]
as an editors draft, why can't we publish w/o the links to gain a broader audience for the work and get more feedback?
17:43:45 [AdamB]
evan: from my view ... since some discussion and not competely essential to core would suggest trim them out now and address later on
17:43:50 [tantek]
q+ to discuss this as evidence of modularity failure
17:44:04 [evanpro]
ack elf-pavlik
17:44:04 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss Reference issues inline in the spec.
17:44:10 [elf-pavlik]
17:44:32 [elf-pavlik]
i got impression last week that James agreed
17:44:40 [Tsyesika]
Tsyesika has left #social
17:44:41 [harry]
17:44:50 [tantek]
it is a modularity failure because an AS2 implementation does not need to know anything about Actions
17:44:56 [elf-pavlik]
<wilkie> elf-pavlik: jasnell said that they would be included in the spec as yellow highlighted sections that link to the github issue I believe
17:44:56 [tantek]
therefore the spec shouldn't need to
17:45:03 [AdamB]
harry: its not a modularity issue but a links not resolving ..other issue was AS namespace referenced within
17:45:03 [MarkCrawford]
Harry - does the resolving links requirement apply to all versions, or just final?
17:45:04 [harry]
404 errors
17:45:10 [harry]
which is just not acceptable
17:45:15 [AdamB]
... lot of links get 404 errors which is not acceptable
17:45:28 [AdamB]
... could monkey patch the links out
17:45:52 [tantek]
Proposal: comment out all the links to Actions (and relevant contextual text) from the two drafts.
17:45:55 [AdamB]
jasnell: the AS namespace is personally owned by ??? is maintained by AS on github
17:46:09 [harry]
s/???/Chris Messina
17:46:13 [AdamB]
... i have access to that domain. larger question is do we want to keep that domain / namespace or not?
17:46:13 [Shane]
Would it be better to move them to the w3 domain, perhaps wiki?
17:46:24 [Arnaud]
good question, shouldn't we switch to a w3c namespace?
17:46:24 [harry]
17:46:27 [harry]
ack harry
17:46:28 [harry]
17:46:29 [Zakim]
17:46:37 [elf-pavlik] ?
17:46:45 [Zakim]
17:46:48 [tantek]
is the namespace issue a FPWD blocker?
17:46:48 [Shane]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:46:48 [Zakim]
+Shane; got it
17:46:50 [Shane]
Zakim, mute me
17:46:50 [Zakim]
Shane should now be muted
17:46:58 [tantek]
if it's not a FPWD blocker then we should postpone discussing
17:47:01 [oshepherd]
elf-pavlik: No,<blah>
17:47:07 [tantek]
let's get past FPWD please
17:47:08 [harry]
it is currently kinda blocking FPWD
17:47:15 [evanpro]
17:47:18 [AdamB]
evan: two big issues: 1. adding or removing actions 2. removing AS in the namespaces
17:47:20 [evanpro]
ack tantek
17:47:20 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to discuss this as evidence of modularity failure
17:47:29 [harry]
i.e. I'd like to make some changes to the doc but want to make sure the WG is OK with it.
17:47:32 [elf-pavlik]
evanpro, can we come back to my question after you ack me?
17:47:37 [evanpro]
17:47:41 [harry]
i.e. we can probably monkey-patch the Action links out
17:47:44 [evanpro]
elf-pavlik: yes, please put yourself back on the queue
17:47:47 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re Reference issues inline in the spec.
17:47:48 [evanpro]
Sorry about that
17:47:51 [harry]
but we need to also resolve
17:48:08 [AdamB]
tantek: given existing impl have not had to know anything about actions that the spec rec doesn't need to refer to it either. that is what i mean by modularity failure
17:48:19 [AdamB]
... its like a layering failure
17:48:21 [Zakim]
17:48:28 [oshepherd]
+1 on modularising spec appropriately. If ActivityStreams is extensible, actions should be able to live on its' own
17:48:30 [Tsyesika]
Tsyesika has joined #social
17:48:31 [Shane]
I think the should redirect to a page on, it is unlikely it will dissapear then
17:48:47 [AdamB]
... no reason core spec should have to mention it at all. so suggestion its completely commenting out from spec.
17:49:04 [evanpro]
ack harry
17:49:07 [AdamB]
.. lets pospone any first draft issues
17:49:14 [Lloyd_Fassett]
Zakim +Lloyd_Fassett
17:49:16 [tantek]
any *non* first draft issues
17:49:20 [AdamB]
harry: namespace is pretty close to a blocker
17:49:26 [harry]
We can remove all links to
17:49:30 [tantek]
let's do that
17:49:34 [tantek]
remove all links that break
17:49:34 [harry]
1) we could comment them out directly
17:49:47 [harry]
2) we could replace them with names
17:49:47 [AdamB]
harry: could remove them, comment them out but that is weird cause they are referenced
17:49:52 [AdamB]
.. could replace with w3c ones
17:49:56 [harry]
3) we could ask ChrisM to update real quick so they don't 404
17:50:01 [harry]
I'm OK with any with those
17:50:02 [AdamB]
... or could update domain so they don't 404
17:50:02 [oshepherd]
If we go for (2), is it possible to make those names always redirect to latest draft?
17:50:08 [AdamB]
jasnell: does have access so can do it
17:50:11 [Zakim]
17:50:13 [AdamB]
... just need to have the time
17:50:27 [AdamB]
evan: its more about the 404 than the namespace issue
17:50:44 [AdamB]
harry: its kind of weird ... its been done but not common
17:50:52 [evanpro]
Can we use ?
17:50:53 [Arnaud]
17:50:54 [tantek]
I'm ok with external URLs / namespace
17:50:58 [AdamB]
... should at least dedicate real thought sometimebefore last call
17:51:01 [tantek]
simplest thing
17:51:04 [Tsyesika]
Tsyesika has left #social
17:51:04 [AdamB]
.. have to fix broken links now
17:51:06 [evanpro]
17:51:07 [Loqi]
evanpro meant to say: Can we use ?
17:51:09 [tantek]
comment out the broken links, "fix" in next draft
17:51:13 [harry]
we gotta do something about broken links now, the external namespace issue we can deal with later
17:51:24 [AdamB]
evan: james, can we setup way to fix broken links
17:51:27 [harry]
The easiest thing is to just probably comment them out
17:51:39 [Arnaud]
solution: remove the links for now, open an issue on namespace to use
17:51:42 [AdamB]
jasnell: can try to get it done before end of week but not positive i can get it done
17:51:47 [tantek]
I'd say if you can't fix the links in the next hour, then let's comment them out for FPWD
17:51:54 [Shane]
That's probably the best way, for FPWD
17:51:59 [tantek]
that buys us more time to make a considered decision rather than rushed
17:52:02 [AdamB]
harry: i can comment them out for now and add them back in later? are people ok with this?
17:52:04 [MarkCrawford]
+1 on commenting out the links
17:52:13 [AdamB]
evan: maybe comment out and open issues to add them back in
17:52:18 [harry]
I'll put an clearly editors draft
17:52:22 [AdamB]
harry: will do that and mark as editors draft
17:52:25 [harry]
redirect Actions links to the Editors draft
17:52:28 [evanpro]
17:52:30 [harry]
that should solve all our linking issues
17:52:37 [tantek]
why not just comment out Actions?
17:52:41 [harry]
Yeah, we could also comment out Actions as well.
17:52:43 [tantek]
that's better for modularity anyway
17:52:48 [tantek]
which is why I'm pushing for that
17:52:59 [AdamB]
harry: will just comment out all broken links
17:53:06 [elf-pavlik]
+1 move actions out of core
17:53:14 [tantek]
this also sets a good precedent for the group
17:53:21 [harry]
We can probably still push things out by Thursday if Webmaster isn't too rushed and all this link commenting works
17:53:26 [tantek]
if your spec has broken links after we've agreed to publish it, then we will comment out the links
17:53:34 [tantek]
I think that's a reasonable policy to adopt
17:53:37 [harry]
17:53:47 [tantek]
it will strongly encourage editors to do a trivial linkcheck EARLY and OFTEN
17:53:51 [harry]
just need to be fair but also realize W3C, being what it is, can't publish broken links :)
17:54:05 [evanpro]
17:54:06 [tantek]
harry - totally agree with not publishing broken links (404)
17:54:09 [evanpro]
ack elf-pavlik
17:54:09 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss Reference issues inline in the spec.
17:54:12 [elf-pavlik]
[from last week minutes] <wilkie> elf-pavlik: jasnell said that they would be included in the spec as yellow highlighted sections that link to the github issue I believe
17:54:20 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
17:54:25 [elf-pavlik]
[from last week minutes] <wilkie> elf-pavlik: jasnell said that they would be included in the spec as yellow highlighted sections that link to the github issue I believe
17:54:26 [AdamB]
evan: discussing elf question
17:54:45 [AdamB]
... not sure understand what the issue is yet elf
17:55:00 [jasnell]
OK... I forgot that line item
17:55:07 [AdamB]
Arnaud: it has to highlighting within the text with the issue
17:55:18 [jasnell]
I can add those in today
17:55:28 [elf-pavlik]
jasnell, thx!
17:55:31 [KevinMarks]
is this a fragmention use case?
17:55:35 [jasnell]
That's a minor fix
17:55:36 [AdamB]
tantek: believed would be called out inline within the document. we agreed to publish with that being the case
17:55:40 [jasnell]
17:55:44 [AdamB]
evan: jasnell can we get this in?
17:55:48 [jasnell]
That's a quick one
17:55:50 [AdamB]
jasnell: yes
17:55:52 [harry]
I would say we do "inline issues" on next WD
17:55:56 [evanpro]
17:56:01 [evanpro]
ack Arnaud
17:56:30 [harry]
17:56:32 [elf-pavlik]
harry, how about -comments mailin list?
17:56:35 [AdamB]
Arnaud: we should use what ever is the most efficient way to the document out. but should put in a tracker for what namespace should be used going forward
17:56:37 [evanpro]
ack harry
17:56:44 [jasnell]
Oy... Ok
17:56:48 [tantek]
harry - except that we agreed to publish *with* the issues inline.
17:56:50 [AdamB]
harry: need those inline issues within the next hour to make it by thursday
17:56:53 [tantek]
jasnell - can you add those issues inline in next hour?
17:57:18 [elf-pavlik]
jasnell, please :)
17:58:04 [harry]
The issue is that this requires yet another cycle from W3C to fix up, so I say send *exact* issues to mailing list
17:58:13 [AdamB]
jasnell: i can try to get it in the next hour but very difficult. if there are higher priority ones send email and i can try to do them by most important
17:58:32 [AdamB]
harry: webmaster needs 1 day to review it
17:58:35 [elf-pavlik]
17:58:44 [AdamB]
... thats how publications always worked
17:59:04 [elf-pavlik]
jasnell, just 4 main issues there
17:59:06 [AdamB]
how hard does that make it for adding issues in the future? does webmaster always have to review those too ?
17:59:20 [tantek]
I'm ok with waiving this requirement for FPWD
17:59:51 [tantek]
elf - are you ok with postponing linking inline to issues until next draft?
17:59:53 [Shane]
Is the issue about Hydra actually an issue of the spec? I don't think it is, just perhaps something to discuss later possibly
17:59:59 [elf-pavlik]
I think we at least need to mention missing JSON-LD @context in examples, but other 3 would also make sense from my POV
18:00:01 [harry]
18:00:04 [AdamB]
harry: inclined to suggest to link this in later
18:00:06 [harry]
18:00:15 [harry]
18:00:20 [tantek]
and does anyone else object to publishing FPWD without the inline issues?
18:00:21 [harry]
I mean, we link to the identifers
18:00:24 [harry]
there's 15 issues
18:00:25 [harry]
all RDF related
18:00:27 [harry]
and opened by elf
18:00:34 [harry]
I'm not sure if this is really blocking
18:00:40 [AdamB]
Arnaud: sounding like we go with out the links are we don't go .. not sure if elf would like to hold up the process for that or not
18:00:41 [jasnell]
Those links aren't critical in my opinion. Not as a blocker.
18:00:54 [jasnell]
There is a link to the issues list in the draft
18:01:00 [elf-pavlik]
can we at lest mention missing @context ?
18:01:01 [harry]
Yes, we do link directly to the tracker
18:01:05 [evanpro]
elf-pavlik: are you comfortable with going to FPWD without these links?
18:01:06 [AdamB]
tantek: if there is only a single objection its the chair prerogative to declare rough consensus
18:01:09 [Shane]
I think we need to get it to FPWD
18:01:10 [harry]
I'm inclined to say "no"
18:01:12 [evanpro]
Otherwise, we won't get the doc out
18:01:30 [AdamB]
... if we are risking not getting it out i don't think its worth postponing for this right now
18:01:47 [elf-pavlik]
i will not block but would appreciate at least mention of missing JSON-LD @context in examples, and maybe one about _:post
18:02:04 [harry]
OK, so that's already linked and examples have @context assumed called out
18:02:30 [AdamB]
jasnell: yeah thats as simple as a link ... but if we have no place to host that officially but there is a link to that context in document already
18:02:31 [evanpro]
elf-pavlik: that's already called out
18:02:53 [AdamB]
evan: since it's called out maybe take an action to link directly but willing to go with what we have right now
18:02:53 [elf-pavlik]
with a link to context at that stage?
18:02:55 [Shane]
Sorry I have to rush away, thanks everyone.
18:02:59 [Zakim]
18:03:04 [evanpro]
elf-pavlik: we'll have that, yes
18:03:06 [AdamB]
harry: most working groups only call out substantial issues directly in the spec
18:03:25 [elf-pavlik]
anyways, i trust in your decision folks so just go ahead without including that request from me
18:03:29 [harry]
For example, WebCrypto had 170+ bugs
18:03:33 [harry]
we called like 5 out in text
18:03:36 [harry]
18:03:58 [elf-pavlik]
ok, end of this topic?
18:03:59 [evanpro]
18:03:59 [harry]
18:04:06 [tantek]
admin: we're also 4 min over
18:04:24 [AdamB]
evan: would like to wrap up agenda items we have open and defer to next week at F2F, any objections?
18:04:31 [tantek]
no objection
18:04:31 [AdamB]
... ok would like to adjourn
18:04:32 [Zakim]
18:04:36 [tantek]
+1 adjourn
18:04:40 [Zakim]
18:04:43 [bret]
nice meeting have fun next week
18:04:44 [oshepherd]
Regrets on not being there in person
18:04:44 [harry]
I'll do some editing and will keep trying to get docs out by Thursday, but no promises :)
18:04:45 [Zakim]
18:04:46 [bret]
will try to remote
18:04:46 [Zakim]
18:04:46 [Zakim]
18:04:48 [Zakim]
18:04:50 [Zakim]
18:04:55 [Zakim]
18:04:56 [Zakim]
18:04:58 [tantek]
c'mon harry, commit!
18:05:04 [Zakim]
18:05:05 [Zakim]
18:05:08 [Zakim]
18:05:09 [Arnaud]
harry, do we have a meeting room #?
18:05:19 [harry]
I'll ask Susan, but I haven't been told
18:05:21 [Arnaud]
would be good to add that info to the meeting page
18:05:21 [Zakim]
18:05:21 [harry] knows
18:05:36 [harry]
Arnaud, please send me list of accepted IEs
18:05:42 [harry]
so I can double-check right now
18:05:50 [Arnaud]
this info seems to be lagging
18:06:02 [Arnaud]
here is what's currently available (because I asked ;-)
18:06:05 [harry]
I think there's some last minute room re-arrangment going on to TPAC being overbooked.
18:06:10 [AdamB]
trackbot, end meeting
18:06:10 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:06:10 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.514.554.aaaa, jasnell, Arnaud, AdamB, evanpro, jtauber, bret, cwebber2, oshepherd, wilkie, MarkCrawford, Lloyd_Fassett, tantek,
18:06:13 [Zakim]
... +1.408.335.aacc, Shane, hhalpin
18:06:18 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:06:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:06:19 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:06:19 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items