IRC log of social on 2016-08-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:01:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:01:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:01:25 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:01:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:01:27 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:01:27 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
17:01:28 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:01:28 [trackbot]
Date: 23 August 2016
17:01:41 [aaronpk]
no, iOS, i don't want to update my phone right before i call in to this meeting
17:01:43 [eprodrom]
Can anyone scribe?
17:01:46 [wilkie]
I can scribe
17:01:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:01:54 [wilkie]
17:01:57 [eprodrom]
17:02:11 [cwebber2]
17:02:15 [rhiaro]
17:02:20 [eprodrom]
scribenick: wilkie
17:02:32 [eprodrom]
chair: eprodrom
17:02:44 [csarven]
17:03:52 [eprodrom]
akim, who's here?
17:03:57 [eprodrom]
Zakim, who's here?
17:03:57 [Zakim]
Present: ben_thatmustbeme, wilkie, eprodrom, cwebber, rhiaro, csarven
17:03:59 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, eprodrom, cwebber2, jasnell_, KevinMarks, tantek, Arnaud, raucao, wilkie, jet, tsyesika, ElijahLynn, csarven, Loqi, rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, rrika, aaronpk,
17:03:59 [Zakim]
... dwhly, bitbear, strugee, bigbluehat, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot
17:04:47 [aaronpk]
17:05:02 [cwebber2]
17:05:04 [sandro]
17:05:15 [eprodrom]
Can anyone hear my voice?
17:05:21 [wilkie]
not yet, no
17:05:26 [rhiaro]
17:05:28 [cwebber2]
17:05:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:05:30 [sandro]
Nope, eprodrom
17:05:34 [eprodrom]
OK, that explains a lot
17:05:36 [cwebber2]
17:05:38 [sandro]
we can hear each other but not you
17:05:41 [eprodrom]
Give me 30 seconds to call back in
17:05:42 [cwebber2]
I was thinking it was a pretty quiet start!
17:06:37 [cwebber2]
17:06:39 [wilkie]
eprodrom: can you hear me now?
17:06:46 [wilkie]
17:06:50 [cwebber2]
17:07:01 [wilkie]
eprodrom: sorry about that. thanks for your patience. probably a good time to get started
17:07:11 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I will be chairing today because Arnaud is unavailable
17:07:22 [wilkie]
eprodrom: let's start out with approving the minutes for the previous meeting
17:07:27 [wilkie]
TOPIC: Approval of Minutes
17:07:30 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED Accept as minutes for 20016-08-02 meeting
17:07:33 [cwebber2]
17:07:35 [rhiaro]
17:07:57 [wilkie]
17:07:57 [eprodrom]
17:08:08 [aaronpk]
17:08:18 [wilkie]
you might need a colon? how does "proposed" work
17:08:44 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: Accept as minutes for 20016-08-02 meeting
17:08:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:09:02 [wilkie]
eprodrom: barring anything else we have resolved on that
17:09:06 [wilkie]
eprodrom: moving on to our next topic
17:09:14 [eprodrom]
17:09:15 [Loqi]
Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)
17:09:20 [wilkie]
eprodrom: probably an important thing but not listed is to cover registration for TPAC
17:09:32 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we are having a meeting at TPAC september 21st to 23rd
17:09:51 [wilkie]
eprodrom: if you haven't registered yet, please do. if you believe you will not be going also let us now. tentively or not.
17:10:02 [tantek]
eprodrom++ for chairing
17:10:02 [Loqi]
eprodrom has 41 karma (40 in this channel)
17:10:05 [wilkie]
eprodrom: great. so. we don't have any other administrative issues to discuss.
17:10:11 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I'd like to move on to our discussion items.
17:10:38 [tantek]
re: f2f is anyone else coming?
17:10:40 [wilkie]
eprodrom: the first is an update on activity pub and LDN and have rhiaro start us off
17:10:54 [wilkie]
rhiaro: last week I went to madison and worked on activity pub and made lots of progress.
17:11:17 [wilkie]
rhiaro: it might be better to have cwebber2 talk about those changes because we didn't do much to LDN but rather catch activitypub up to LDN
17:11:33 [wilkie]
cwebber2: sounds good. first, rhiaro was an immense help.
17:11:51 [wilkie]
cwebber2: the first is to clarify client to client and client to server stuff. although some of this isn't in the document.
17:12:07 [wilkie]
cwebber2: first, there is a list of side effects of using various activities in activity streams.
17:12:15 [tantek]
I'll add a specific item about f2f at the end of the agenda and try to get on the phone
17:12:24 [wilkie]
cwebber2: and a separate section showing targetting and delivery and side effects of activities.
17:12:34 [wilkie]
cwebber2: these are cleaning separated which we've been talking about for some time
17:12:52 [wilkie]
cwebber2: one thing we discuss is having two separate documents and saying this makes sense from the payload and protocols
17:13:27 [wilkie]
cwebber2: but we have seen that the differences is a specialization of some of the LDN specifications
17:13:43 [wilkie]
cwebber2: clarifying and using much of the LDN stuff has made the sections clearer and more concise
17:14:14 [wilkie]
cwebber2: since we have linked data notifications referenced cleanly in activitypub and sections for client-client and client-server... we will keep it as one document
17:14:26 [wilkie]
cwebber2: rhiaro and I agree about this and tsyesika also seems to agree
17:14:55 [wilkie]
cwebber2: one concern is... "I want to publish this note to my followers" and somebody replies to you, how does this reply get out to your followers?
17:15:18 [wilkie]
cwebber2: has encountered this issue too. we did a demo implementation and drew things out on paper and we think we've come up with a method and put that in the spec
17:15:38 [eprodrom]
17:15:42 [wilkie]
cwebber2: that if somebody does write a reply you can forward it under some conditions
17:16:01 [wilkie]
cwebber2: there are changes to make to the WD and I can make those and go toward a new working draft and feel confident about the state of the document
17:16:05 [eprodrom]
17:16:26 [wilkie]
eprodrom: rhiaro, you were saying there aren't major changes to LDN at this point?
17:16:47 [wilkie]
rhiaro: right. there are editorial changes and we should still publish a new LDN WD as well to make sure things are in sync.
17:16:48 [eprodrom]
Zakim, who's on the call?
17:16:48 [Zakim]
Present: ben_thatmustbeme, wilkie, eprodrom, cwebber, rhiaro, csarven, aaronpk, sandro
17:17:03 [wilkie]
rhiaro: lately I've changed social web protocols to catch things up and so we need to publish a new version of that too
17:17:41 [wilkie]
eprodrom: great. this might open a can of worms; we discussed last meeting... this is a social web protocols / ldn question, how do we handle having ldn and aligning it with others
17:17:48 [wilkie]
rhiaro: right, that's next on my things to attack
17:17:49 [KevinMarks]
17:17:50 [wilkie]
eprodrom: ah, sorry, ok
17:18:01 [eprodrom]
17:18:10 [wilkie]
rhiaro: I added it to the social web protocols and hopefully I can talk to julien about that
17:18:30 [wilkie]
eprodrom: cwebber2, are we ready for a next version then?
17:18:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:18:32 [Loqi]
changelog has 2 karma (1 in this channel)
17:18:38 [wilkie]
cwebber2: I think so I just have to add one thing
17:19:13 [wilkie]
eprodrom: my next question is: should we go to working draft or wait until the group can review or just push the next version? I'm also fine with review on the WD.
17:19:36 [wilkie]
rhiaro: I was thinking we would publish the new WD today and then have it reviewed since we have some time off
17:19:51 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: publish current editor's draft of ActivityPub plus changelog as new working draft
17:19:54 [wilkie]
cwebber2: I agree with that because we want to get to CR either before or by TPAC and this would help us move along
17:20:04 [tantek]
is there a link to the changelog?
17:20:14 [wilkie]
eprodrom: before we start +1'ing it, cwebber2 and rhiaro, does this reflect what you want to do next?
17:20:17 [wilkie]
cwebber2: yep
17:20:18 [wilkie]
rhiaro: yep
17:20:31 [eprodrom]
17:20:32 [tantek]
we really should provide a link to a changelog for anything we want to propose publishing
17:20:32 [rhiaro]
17:20:36 [wilkie]
eprodrom: changelog right now?
17:20:40 [cwebber2]
17:20:40 [wilkie]
17:20:41 [sandro]
17:20:55 [csarven]
17:21:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
0, don't really like publishing without a review or some changelog, but i will abstain in the interest of saving time
17:21:16 [tantek]
0, similarly
17:21:18 [cwebber2]
I could write a fast changelog that'll be done before meeting end if necessary
17:21:19 [KevinMarks]
traffic noises
17:21:32 [cwebber2]
would that help?
17:21:44 [tantek]
(cwebber2 yes please!)
17:22:07 [tantek]
any document that is rec track should have a changelog with summaries
17:22:11 [wilkie]
eprodrom: cwebber2, don't do the changelog during the call if you can help it, but some <laughs> have other opinions on that
17:22:18 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: publish current editor's draft of ActivityPub plus changelog as new working draft
17:22:19 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I'm going to mark this as resolved and... great
17:22:34 [tantek]
I believe AS2, Micropub, Webmention have all done a good job of providing changelogs for every published draft and that's been very helpful
17:22:45 [cwebber2]
17:22:48 [wilkie]
eprodrom: in all aspects, next time we have proposals coming up from editors moving to WD that you bring a changelog with you. either something you can link or drop into the channel.
17:22:52 [wilkie]
eprodrom: great
17:22:53 [tantek]
(if anyone would like examples of existing changelogs in the group)
17:23:02 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I'd like to move on to the next topic
17:23:03 [KevinMarks]
cwebber2: reading scrollback your notification issue sounds like salmentions
17:23:07 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: Proposal: publish new WD of SWP
17:23:13 [wilkie]
TOPIC: publish new WD of SWP
17:23:29 [rhiaro]
17:23:48 [wilkie]
rhiaro: this morning I added PuSH and refactored a section. the link of the git log I dropped in the channel should give you an idea of the changes.
17:23:53 [KevinMarks]
17:24:01 [wilkie]
rhiaro: I'd like to propose those changes.
17:24:07 [eprodrom]
17:24:21 [wilkie]
eprodrom: do we have questions on Social Web Protocols?
17:24:22 [tantek]
(since SWP is not rec-track, having an in-draft changelog is not as important)
17:24:46 [wilkie]
eprodrom: ok. great. I'd like to ask... rhiaro would you mind adding a changelog to this document?
17:24:49 [tantek]
rhiaro: can you provide a link to the draft you have staged to publish?
17:24:49 [wilkie]
rhiaro: no problem
17:24:53 [KevinMarks]
I mentioned Social Web Protocols on TWiG this week :D
17:24:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek, is SWPO non-rec-track?
17:25:02 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I'd like to propose publishing this editors draft as a new working draft
17:25:03 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: publish + Changelog as new working draft for Social Web Protocols
17:25:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:25:20 [tantek]
ben_thatmustbeme: yes that's my understanding since it non-normatively compares / relates *other* specs
17:25:22 [wilkie]
eprodrom: does that look right, rhiaro?
17:25:24 [wilkie]
rhiaro: yeah, looks right
17:25:26 [wilkie]
eprodrom: great
17:25:28 [eprodrom]
17:25:29 [aaronpk]
17:25:29 [rhiaro]
17:25:32 [KevinMarks]
17:25:33 [wilkie]
eprodrom: please vote
17:25:33 [cwebber2]
17:25:34 [wilkie]
17:25:40 [csarven]
17:25:40 [sandro]
17:26:21 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I'll give some time to look it over
17:26:44 [wilkie]
rhiaro: just to add this has a less important time table but it is important that people not see it too out of date
17:26:50 [cwebber2]
oops, realized I wasn't muted
17:26:54 [cwebber2]
sorry for typing noises
17:26:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+0 again as before
17:27:00 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I think it is important to keep this up to date and appreciate that you took the time to do that
17:27:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
but it is important to get SWP changes out
17:27:21 [wilkie]
eprodrom: tantek?
17:27:28 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I don't want to rush you. I know you are reading it now.
17:27:31 [tantek]
rhiaro typo: "ontent is deleted"
17:27:43 [rhiaro]
will fix :)
17:27:45 [tantek]
(start of 3.2)
17:28:16 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I need all the votes in
17:28:26 [tantek]
+1 great update rhiaro. Thank you.
17:28:29 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: publish + Changelog as new working draft for Social Web Protocols
17:28:52 [wilkie]
eprodrom: alright. great. I'm going to mark this as resolved. rhiaro, if you won't mind to fix that typo even if it isn't part of the resolution.
17:29:09 [wilkie]
eprodrom: next agenda item is to publish a new working draft of LDN
17:29:15 [wilkie]
TOPIC: Publish New Working Draft of LDN
17:29:22 [wilkie]
eprodrom: rhiaro, can you tell us all what's going on with LDN
17:29:29 [rhiaro]
17:29:30 [wilkie]
rhiaro: nothing substantive except some clarifications
17:29:46 [wilkie]
rhiaro: it does have a changelog here but it is just editorial stuff but thought it doesn't hurt to keep things up-to-date
17:29:49 [wilkie]
eprodrom: great
17:29:49 [tantek]
17:29:50 [Loqi]
changelog has 3 karma (2 in this channel)
17:29:51 [aaronpk]
17:29:55 [aaronpk]
that's not very descriptive :)
17:30:00 [wilkie]
eprodrom: the document doesn't have a changelog?
17:30:08 [wilkie]
rhiaro: I linked to the document that has a changelog
17:30:16 [wilkie]
eprodrom: ah, I see, great
17:30:36 [wilkie]
eprodrom: maybe in the future, especially since you did say there are explanatory differences, to explain what those differences are
17:30:43 [tantek]
+1 on that
17:30:56 [wilkie]
eprodrom: everybody please mute if you aren't me <laughs> thank you
17:31:12 [rhiaro]
This is the version to publish
17:31:12 [wilkie]
eprodrom: the one on is the editor's draft? I believe?
17:31:18 [rhiaro]
ED ready to be WD
17:31:34 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: publish + detailed changelog as new working draft of LDN
17:31:37 [wilkie]
eprodrom: great. so I am going to propose publishing this as a new working draft of LDN
17:31:53 [rhiaro]
Looks good
17:31:55 [tantek]
this is a second WD right? we already did a FPWD?
17:32:02 [wilkie]
eprodrom: rhiaro, does that make sense to you?
17:32:06 [rhiaro]
17:32:09 [wilkie]
eprodrom: and yeah, this is the second WD I believe
17:32:18 [eprodrom]
17:32:21 [rhiaro]
17:32:25 [cwebber2]
17:32:30 [sandro]
17:32:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:32:32 [aaronpk]
17:32:33 [wilkie]
eprodrom: (upon seeing rhiaro's affirmative on IRC) ok. great. if this makes sense, let's vote.
17:32:36 [wilkie]
17:32:43 [tantek]
17:32:48 [csarven]
17:33:30 [wilkie]
eprodrom: <laughs> everyone is more willing to make progress when we've had 2 weeks off.
17:33:34 [wilkie]
eprodrom: and yes, next week we have off
17:33:37 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: publish + detailed changelog as new working draft of LDN
17:33:46 [wilkie]
eprodrom: if you are to vote please do so. in this case I will mark it resolved.
17:33:54 [wilkie]
eprodrom: there is a new working draft. great.
17:34:06 [wilkie]
eprodrom: let's move on to our next item which is about AS2
17:34:26 [wilkie]
eprodrom: probably easier to have tantek chair while we go over the next item since it makes sense for me to address what is going on with AS2
17:34:33 [aaronpk]
tantek is not on the phone
17:34:37 [wilkie]
TOPIC: ActivityStreams 2.0
17:34:47 [tantek]
I can't chair, I'm speaking in person at the AB meeting :/
17:34:48 [wilkie]
eprodrom: ah. ok. I'll chair myself and try to push through this.
17:35:04 [wilkie]
eprodrom: so. the state of AS2, a brief recap, on AS2. We had our CR meeting.
17:35:10 [tantek]
so that eprodrom can be free to discuss AS2 as editor
17:35:17 [wilkie]
eprodrom: after our meeting we had some issues brought up by i18n group.
17:35:37 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we decided to pull out of CR to better address these concerns and we've been addressing them for the last few weeks.
17:35:55 [eprodrom]
17:36:00 [wilkie]
eprodrom: as of today, jasnell_ did a few PRs to resolve these existing issues and so, depending on your measurement, we might be ready to go to CR right now
17:36:08 [wilkie]
eprodrom: however we have new issues that are currently on our list
17:36:22 [wilkie]
eprodrom: a couple of those are editorial
17:36:44 [wilkie]
eprodrom: those will probably not be a problem but there are at least 1 or 2 normative changes
17:37:25 [wilkie]
eprodrom: where I am, as an editor, wondering is if we need to get to 0 issues to reach CR, or is it better to go to CR with the document as we've agreed and resolve these in the next months
17:37:37 [cwebber2]
vote going to CR
17:37:41 [cwebber2]
*I vote
17:37:42 [wilkie]
eprodrom: that's where we are at the moment. we are in an administrative point. as an editor, I want to move to CR and resolve as we go along
17:37:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:38:00 [wilkie]
eprodrom: ben?
17:38:04 [eprodrom]
ack ben_thatmustbeme
17:38:12 [tantek]
is sandro on the phone?
17:38:21 [tantek]
we really need other people who were on the AS2 CR transition call to contribute to this discussion (apologies that I cannot)
17:38:22 [wilkie]
ben_thatmustbeme: I was wondering if we go to CR and have normative changes, we have to redo CR. what does that entail
17:38:56 [wilkie]
sandro: I am on the phone. the second version of CR involves us being willing to do it and its not a lot of work but it has about a 3 week turn-around so it is better to avoid it if you can
17:39:22 [tantek]
in my experience any "real" / practical spec has at least 2 CRs
17:39:24 [rhiaro]
He's done it, the i18n issues are resolved in the current ED
17:39:38 [wilkie]
sandro: my understanding, though, is that we had a meeting (you weren't on this meeting) and we were waiting for these issues and jasnell_ said he would fix them and then said he would fix them today and we had resolved these
17:39:42 [tantek]
that is, implementers of the first CR nearly always find substantial issue that require normative changes
17:39:42 [aaronpk]
here is the thread
17:39:45 [tantek]
and thus a second CR
17:39:46 [wilkie]
sandro: what is the status of these edits? anyone know?
17:39:54 [aaronpk]
and here is the new paragraph:
17:39:56 [Loqi]
[James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0
17:40:07 [wilkie]
eprodrom: yeah. jasnell_ has made a PR for changes to how we handle bi-directional text
17:40:35 [wilkie]
eprodrom: basically, for those who aren't following this, we came down to a fundamental difference between using bidirectional markers at the unicode level and using bidirectional markup in the html level
17:41:07 [wilkie]
eprodrom: there were strong resolution to not use the markup in certain fields and we can to a satisifactory compromise that doesn't require markup in the name field
17:41:14 [KevinMarks]
what's the PR?
17:41:28 [eprodrom]
17:41:30 [Loqi]
[James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0
17:41:30 [tantek]
could you link to the "satisfactory compromise" for ther ecord?
17:41:43 [wilkie]
eprodrom: jasnell_ made those changes and they are in the editor's draft... let me make sure... yes. section 4.7... I can drop this
17:41:53 [tantek]
link to the *discussion* that resulted in the "satisfactory compromise"
17:41:55 [wilkie]
eprodrom: ah, yeah, satisfactory compromise... let me see if I can link to that
17:42:02 [eprodrom]
17:42:06 [wilkie]
eprodrom: here is the pull request
17:42:24 [wilkie]
eprodrom: that jasnell_ made
17:42:28 [aaronpk]
336 has the discussion
17:42:30 [wilkie]
eprodrom: let me see if I can summarize
17:42:42 [wilkie]
eprodrom: this is about using natural language and bidirectional text
17:42:49 [wilkie]
eprodrom: this is a significant change
17:43:12 [sandro]
+1 that all sounds right
17:43:31 [eprodrom]
17:43:37 [wilkie]
sandro: sounds like we solved the bidirectional issues
17:43:42 [wilkie]
eprodrom: yes
17:44:04 [KevinMarks]
that BIDI makes sense given the tests we conducted.
17:44:04 [tantek]
is this the compromise?
17:44:12 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we have 6 issues. one is easy to fix. one is normative and a change from a MAY to a SHOULD.
17:44:14 [tantek]
issue 336 is too long to be considered a "Summary"
17:44:20 [tantek]
shh trackbot
17:44:28 [wilkie]
eprodrom: either than that... they seem to be resolved
17:44:46 [wilkie]
sandro: sounds like there is nothing here that would need a second CR if we changed it? anything that would change implementations?
17:44:53 [tantek]
my understanding is that NO properties are added to AS2 as a result of this discussion right?
17:44:58 [aaronpk]
17:44:59 [tantek]
eprodrom: could you confirm ^^^ ?
17:45:00 [KevinMarks]
17:45:06 [tantek]
ok then I am +1
17:45:06 [wilkie]
eprodrom: it doesn't seem like that a publisher or consumer would be significantly different between this MAY or SHOULD
17:45:15 [wilkie]
eprodrom: it is just a shift of emphasis, I'd think
17:45:22 [wilkie]
sandro: we don't know what we want to do with this one at this point?
17:45:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
how long would it take to figure out the may or should?
17:45:32 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I can't make that call right now
17:45:36 [rhiaro]
17:45:43 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I'd make it a SHOULD but jasnell_ probably has different ideas about it
17:45:45 [eprodrom]
ack rhiaro
17:45:46 [wilkie]
eprodrom: rhiaro?
17:45:57 [wilkie]
rhiaro: realistically we would have a second CR on this
17:45:58 [wilkie]
sandro: why?
17:46:18 [wilkie]
rhiaro: seems like we will get feedback from implementers, unless you don't think so. seems like it would probably happen
17:46:23 [wilkie]
sandro: I just want to avoid extra work
17:46:24 [wilkie]
rhiaro: ok
17:46:44 [tantek]
are we willing to write tests for this detail?
17:46:52 [wilkie]
sandro: I feel like MAY vs SHOULD won't hurt but the safest thing we could do is make it at-risk
17:46:55 [tantek]
or get i18n to write tests?
17:47:00 [wilkie]
eprodrom: so put it as SHOULD and say "at-risk"
17:47:01 [tantek]
that's one way to address may/should
17:47:14 [wilkie]
sandro: or leave it as MAY and say "at-risk" and it may change to a SHOULD
17:47:24 [wilkie]
sandro: whatever way we think it is likely to go and just put it 'at-risk'
17:47:33 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I like marking it 'at-risk' and publishing as-is
17:47:36 [wilkie]
sandro: sounds good
17:47:38 [tantek]
can we actually make it at-risk when i18n says it's a requirement?
17:47:44 [wilkie]
sandro: and the other 5 issues don't seem like normative changes?
17:47:57 [eprodrom]
17:47:58 [rhiaro]
the https one?
17:48:12 [tantek]
I'm worried that we drop it, then i18n objects when we try to go CR->PR
17:48:26 [rhiaro]
isn't w3c ns taking care of that?
17:48:31 [rhiaro]
it officially switched to https on 1 Aug I believe
17:48:36 [rhiaro]
17:48:39 [eprodrom]
17:48:47 [wilkie]
eprodrom: one is normative but... it is whether we support the HTTP content or what makes most sense
17:48:52 [wilkie]
eprodrom: rhiaro, can you say this outloud?
17:49:22 [wilkie]
sandro: I don't think I've thought about this for context uris, but for namespace URIs this doesn't change
17:49:35 [wilkie]
rhiaro: right, but this changes javascript implementations... this is an implementation problem
17:49:37 [KevinMarks]
which may is becoming a should?
17:49:51 [wilkie]
sandro: it does seem possible that browsers will be a pain in this way
17:49:53 [eprodrom]
17:50:13 [wilkie]
eprodrom: my feeling is HTTPS makes most sense. our implementor base is small and this is the time to do it
17:50:30 [wilkie]
eprodrom: the only down-side is that there are some older libraries that don't support HTTPS but I think they are a smaller and smaller number
17:50:38 [wilkie]
eprodrom: and it makes sense to push it to HTTPS everywhere
17:50:45 [wilkie]
sandro: let's make this at-risk too
17:50:55 [wilkie]
sandro: there are complexities here that I didn't think were there at first
17:51:05 [csarven]
I hope there is alignment with
17:51:13 [wilkie]
eprodrom: let's make it HTTPS in the editor's draft and we'll mark it 'at-risk' that we might also support just HTTP
17:51:17 [csarven]
^ eprodrom
17:51:25 [wilkie]
sandro: yeah. the main reason to not put HTTPS there is...
17:51:31 [csarven]
The contents of @context stays as HTTP
17:51:51 [csarven]
It is the reference to context in HTTP is a problem if on HTTPS - client side / browser issue
17:52:01 [csarven]
Hope for the best and have implementations fix their stuff??
17:52:12 [wilkie]
sandro: the URIs might need some place to mark that it is HTTPS or not otherwise it will pull it from the base url
17:52:34 [wilkie]
sandro: I never thought about the mixed-content warnings so I don't know what the right thing to do is
17:52:41 [csarven]
ok with eprodrom 's suggestion with AT RISK
17:52:41 [wilkie]
sandro: let's say 'at-risk' and figure it out.
17:52:44 [rhiaro]
And maybe having it called out in the CR doc will help with getting feedback
17:52:48 [KevinMarks]
17:52:49 [Loqi]
[Kevin Marks] ‮ inline RTL works in reverse without implementers knowing
17:52:49 [Loqi]
17:52:52 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we're ok with at-risk and then figure it out?
17:52:54 [wilkie]
sandro: yep
17:52:56 [wilkie]
eprodrom: ok. great.
17:53:26 [wilkie]
eprodrom: sounds like I have two 'at-risk' notes to put in. and besides that looks like we are ready to go and I can have a version ready to have out thursday?
17:53:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
just reference with "//" and make it decide on its own :P
17:53:31 [wilkie]
eprodrom: does that work time-wise? rhiaro?
17:53:34 [wilkie]
rhiaro: yeah
17:53:47 [wilkie]
rhiaro: if they say no for thursday we can do it next tuesday
17:53:52 [wilkie]
eprodrom: ok!
17:54:07 [wilkie]
sandro: let's get a new resolution on record
17:54:19 [eprodrom]
ben_thatmustbeme: I'll keep that in mind
17:54:48 [eprodrom]
17:55:04 [wilkie]
eprodrom: if anyone has a question about AS2 and what we are doing right now, this is a great time to ask
17:55:10 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Proceed to CR with both ActivityStreams documents, including the changes worked out with i18n and items marked At Risk in this meeting, as per Ralph's go-ahead from the transition meeting.
17:55:32 [cwebber2]
17:55:33 [eprodrom]
17:55:33 [rhiaro]
17:55:34 [sandro]
17:55:39 [csarven]
17:55:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:55:51 [wilkie]
17:56:00 [KevinMarks]
17:56:47 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: Proceed to CR with both ActivityStreams documents, including the changes worked out with i18n and items marked At Risk in this meeting, as per Ralph's go-ahead from the transition meeting.
17:56:49 [wilkie]
eprodrom: unless we have any objections, now is the time to do so
17:57:09 [wilkie]
eprodrom: now we have something to point to in terms of resolutions.
17:57:09 [rhiaro]
cwebber2++ for speedy changelog!
17:57:09 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 70 karma
17:57:13 [cwebber2]
thanks rhiaro :)
17:57:15 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we are now at the top of the hour
17:57:35 [cwebber2]
since I did a /me earlier, here's the changelog for log records
17:57:42 [wilkie]
eprodrom: aaronpk, are you good with pushing micropub for two weeks from now? or should we extend?
17:57:59 [wilkie]
aaronpk: I'm ok with waiting two weeks and come up with a more concrete proposal
17:58:09 [wilkie]
eprodrom: great. how long do you think it will take? we can extend 10 minutes
17:58:12 [tantek]
+1 on AS2 CR (sorry to be delayed, multitasking is hard)
17:58:13 [wilkie]
aaronpk: it is fine. we can just wait
17:58:27 [wilkie]
eprodrom: great. thank you very much. appreciate your flexibilty on that.
17:58:35 [cwebber2]
good call!
17:58:36 [wilkie]
eprodrom: thank you everybody for your time. I believe that wraps it up for us.
17:58:38 [cwebber2]
productive :)
17:58:40 [rhiaro]
17:58:40 [Loqi]
wilkie has 33 karma
17:58:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:58:42 [Loqi]
wilkie has 34 karma
17:58:45 [cwebber2]
17:58:45 [Loqi]
wilkie has 35 karma
17:58:46 [wilkie]
thanks all
17:58:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:58:47 [Loqi]
slow down!
17:58:47 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
17:58:47 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:58:47 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been ben_thatmustbeme, wilkie, eprodrom, cwebber, rhiaro, csarven, aaronpk, sandro, KevinMarks
17:58:48 [cwebber2]
17:58:50 [tantek]
I'm worried about only 5 people coming to the f2f - will we have enough to talk about for 2 days?
17:58:55 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:58:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:58:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:58:56 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items