08:09:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
08:09:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-social-irc
08:09:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
08:09:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
08:09:12 <paulcj> paulcj has joined #social
08:09:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
08:09:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
08:09:14 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
08:09:14 <trackbot> Date: 22 September 2016
08:09:30 <jungkees> jungkees has joined #social
08:09:34 <tantek> good morning #social! day 1 of the f2f is starting.
08:09:52 <lescarr> lescarr has joined #social
08:10:37 <rhiaro> present+
08:10:43 <cwebber2> present+
08:10:44 <tantek> present+
08:10:48 <KjetilK> present+
08:10:48 <aaronpk> present+
08:10:54 <paulcj> present +
08:10:56 <tkim> tkim has joined #social
08:11:16 <tsyesika> present+
08:11:30 <tsyesika> I can hear you
08:11:41 <cwebber2> fabulous
08:12:26 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
08:12:30 <bigbluehat> scribenick: bigbluehat
08:12:47 <csarven> present+
08:13:23 <bigbluehat> Topic: Agenda item scheduling
08:13:38 <harry> harry has joined #social
08:13:42 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-22#Agenda
08:13:43 <Loqi> Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)
08:14:16 <bigbluehat> tantek: great work everyone on the demos yesterday
08:14:39 <bigbluehat> ...first time I've seen a WG demo so many of their working drafts
08:14:45 <bigbluehat> ...think we have 5?
08:14:52 <bigbluehat> sandro: depends on how you count
08:15:24 <bigbluehat> tantek: Anne put up a great photo of the breakout
08:15:55 <rhiaro> s/Anne/AnnB
08:16:00 <bigbluehat> ...the demos yesterday did a great job of heading off divisive discussions
08:16:18 <bigbluehat> ...thanks to everyone for making the environment so much better
08:16:32 <bigbluehat> ...we have a review request from I18N and a schedule meeting with them today
08:16:37 <bigbluehat> ...how long rhiaro?
08:16:40 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: an hour
08:17:02 <bigbluehat> tantek: they'll be reviewing AS2 and activitypub with them?
08:17:14 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: I'm not sure what ActivityPub will need that isn't covered by AS2
08:17:25 <bigbluehat> tantek: but we'll show them just the same to be sure it's covered
08:17:40 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: there might be a few things in Web Mention about the responses
08:17:45 <bigbluehat> ...and that might also effect LDN
08:18:17 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: we do need to file a formal request for LDN and (??)
08:18:26 <bigbluehat> tantek: if we did 10 minute per spec, that'd be an hour
08:18:46 <bigbluehat> ...this afternoon I and sandro I believe need to go to the AC meeting
08:18:51 <bigbluehat> ...we are meeting until 3 pm today
08:18:59 <bigbluehat> ...unless we somehow setup Evan to remote chair
08:19:09 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: we go to them, right?
08:19:23 <bigbluehat> ...can the other groups chair for the group meetings?
08:19:28 <bigbluehat> sandro: yeah. that could work.
08:19:41 <bigbluehat> tantek: I don't think I need to be there for the I18N discussions
08:19:52 <bigbluehat> ...I believe I've shared my opinions already and those can be relayed
08:20:03 <bigbluehat> ...now that we've discussed that bit...we should go back and do introductions
08:20:16 <bigbluehat> ...Amy can update the agenda since she's working on scheduling the other groups
08:20:23 <bigbluehat> ...Let's pop back to intros
08:20:44 <tantek> Tantek Çelik, chair, Mozilla, also on the AB
08:21:00 <sandro> sandro: Sandro Hawke, W3C / MIT
08:21:09 <kaorumaeda> kaorumaeda has joined #social
08:22:07 <cwebber2> I'm Chris Webber, I'm an editor of ActivityPub, I work on MediaGoblin as motivation, and I'm an invited expert in the group
08:22:25 <tantek> observers, please add yourselves to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-22#Observers
08:22:28 <Loqi> Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)
08:22:48 <paulcj> Paul Jeong, HTML5 Forum in Korea, making korean local social web standard using W3C standard
08:23:18 <aaronpk> Aaron Parecki, editor of Webmention and Micropub
08:23:57 <KjetilK> Kjetil Kjernsmo, Observer, old-time semwebber, worked with social media in the past, trying to get back into the area of decentralized social media
08:24:07 <bigbluehat> Benjamin Young, co-editor of the Web Annotation spec, interested in AS2 and LDN for their use in Web Annotation
08:24:43 <kaorumaeda> Kaoru Maeda, Observer
08:25:04 <csarven> I'm Sarven Capadisli http://csarven.ca/#i , editor of https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/ . Invited expert. Working on https://dokie.li/
08:25:13 <bigbluehat> tantek: I18N is in 1.05--right next door
08:25:17 <rhiaro> Amy Guy, W3C/MIT/University of Edinburgh, staff contact, Social Web Protocols, LDN
08:25:25 <bigbluehat> at 15:30
08:25:36 <bigbluehat> s/at 15:30/...at 15:30
08:25:45 <bigbluehat> ...our end of day will be at 16:30
08:25:48 <tsyesika> I'll just write mine here: I'm Jessica Tallon (on hangouts), I am a co-editor on ActivityPub, and invited expert in the group and have done a lot of work on GNU Mediagoblin's federation
08:26:10 <bigbluehat> ...we have some time to discuss strategy for the next 3 months--which takes us to the end of the charter
08:26:22 <bigbluehat> ...after that we have blocks of time for our various CRs
08:26:36 <bigbluehat> ...I scheduled things partly around evan's schedule--he'll hopefully be awake by then
08:26:39 <tsyesika> :)
08:27:11 <bigbluehat> ...first thing I have is ActivityPub and then LDN and then Post Type Discovery after that...because I'll be here
08:27:24 <bigbluehat> ...PUbSubHubbub will be tomorrow
08:27:38 <dan> dan has joined #social
08:27:39 <bigbluehat> ...and then finish with a "what's next?" tomorrow
08:27:44 <bigbluehat> ...anything else?
08:27:50 <bigbluehat> ...then let's go on to strategy for the next 3 months
08:27:58 <bigbluehat> Topic: Strategy for the next 3 months
08:28:16 <bigbluehat> tantek: we have several CRs and a few WDs that are pretty advanced
08:28:26 <bigbluehat> ...we have another that is FPWD state, but has several implementations
08:28:44 <bigbluehat> ...our goal--our a proposed straw goal--is to get all of these to TR before the end of our charter
08:28:55 <bigbluehat> ...I think we have a decent chance to do that
08:29:26 <bigbluehat> ...having multiple docs to push through the process at various times, has proved useful for getting things out the door
08:29:34 <bigbluehat> ...I think we can continue that pattern over the next 3 months
08:29:42 <bigbluehat> ...I think it's achievable
08:29:47 <bigbluehat> ...the biggest unknowns are:
08:29:54 <bigbluehat> ...Sufficient Test Suites
08:30:11 <bigbluehat> ...and sufficient implementation coverage to show to W3C Management
08:30:22 <bigbluehat> sandro: we also need public wide review and horizontal review
08:30:28 <harry> Sorry, had to leave TPAC to help teach a course, but note that I spoke re Pubsubhubbub with DanBri, who is close with BradFitz (Pubsubhubbub original author).
08:30:28 <bigbluehat> tantek: yes! that's a big requirement.
08:30:46 <bigbluehat> ...I'd like to underscore that
08:30:59 <harry> I would follow up with danbri, but he said as long as it's clear Google is not endorsing the work or the WG, he can speak with BradFitz over RF licensing.
08:31:01 <bigbluehat> sandro: apparently 3 months before CR is when you go out for horizontal review
08:31:12 <harry> So if any of you are at TPAC (particularly sandro/rhiaro), talk with Danbri.
08:31:12 <bigbluehat> tantek: yeah...that was several yester-months ago
08:31:18 <rhiaro> s/apparently/plh said
08:31:32 <bigbluehat> ...at this point, we'd like to get horizontal review ASAP
08:31:42 <bigbluehat> ...especially since they're kind of a pair, those requests should go out this week
08:31:46 <bigbluehat> sandro: definitely this week
08:31:56 <bigbluehat> tantek: is that something sandro or rhiaro can cover?
08:32:05 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: it depends on who you're asking
08:32:08 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #social
08:32:08 <harry> Yes, I think Wendy would red-flag going forward with Pubsubhubbub if there's no contributor agreement from the original author, unless Julien didn't use any of BradFitz's original text.
08:32:12 <bigbluehat> sandro: yes. the staff contacts can help
08:32:34 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: but the speed is groups is different and several of them have pre-requisite self-review
08:32:48 <bigbluehat> s/rhiaro:/...
08:33:01 <bigbluehat> tantek: I think we should give them warning at least that we're coming
08:33:10 <bigbluehat> ...and estimates of when we expect to take them to CR
08:33:16 <wseltzer> [note it's not a question of text, but features for RF patent commitment]
08:33:21 <bigbluehat> ...so that we don't ask for review last minute as we'd done before
08:33:50 <bigbluehat> sandro: we could say "we're ready to go to CR, modulo your review then great"
08:34:01 <bigbluehat> sandro: tantek: in two weeks
08:34:10 <bigbluehat> sandro: then we can try and push these through faster
08:34:26 <bigbluehat> csarven: how do select who to get reviewed by?
08:34:42 <bigbluehat> sandro: it's based on our own needs, but if we don't get any then there are problems
08:35:03 <bigbluehat> tantek: correct. If there aren't external reviews, then W3C Management will be unhappy
08:35:17 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: who should we find for external review
08:35:21 <bigbluehat> sandro: the farther away the better
08:35:30 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: k. trying to decide who to contact
08:35:43 <bigbluehat> ...someone from Pump.io has recently dug into ActivityPub and heavily reviewed it already
08:35:47 <bigbluehat> sandro: yeah. that's perfect.
08:36:07 <bigbluehat> tantek: generally I think we've taken the approach of generally useful pieces for other groups--often external
08:36:42 <cwebber2> s/dug into ActivityPub/dug into ActivityStreams and (to a lesser extent) ActivityPub/
08:36:50 <bigbluehat> ...if you expect your spec is the foundation for someone else, then be sure they're part of the review
08:37:06 <bigbluehat> ...Web Annotation, for instance should review LDN if their considering recommending it
08:37:07 <boris_anthony> boris_anthony has joined #social
08:37:30 <bigbluehat> sandro: ideally, this sort of things has gone on for 3 years
08:37:45 <bigbluehat> ...but in the case of these new specs, we're down to the 3 months
08:37:52 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman has joined #social
08:37:55 <bigbluehat> tantek: right, so greater encouragement to review is needed
08:37:58 <sandro> (and that
08:38:07 <bigbluehat> ...wider and great horizontal review is the most critical thing at this point
08:38:12 <sandro> (and that's when it's most important to get wide review)
08:38:17 <harry> wseltzer, yes the concepts/features are more or less the same as BradFitz's spec.
08:38:18 <bigbluehat> ...and we're also dependent on other people to get back to us
08:38:21 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #social
08:38:32 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: so. I'm trying to figure out when we should have people get back to us
08:38:56 <harry> However, I also think some of text is his as well, so it makes to get a RF. BradFitz isn't against, he just doesn't see the point or any advantages of standardization, but DanBri or Julien could likely discuss.
08:39:02 <bigbluehat> tantek: I think if you have a sense of what's optional, at risk, etc, then you're ready for wide review
08:39:17 <bigbluehat> ...there's a list of standard horizontal reviews and rhiaro is going to share that list
08:39:41 <wseltzer> [harry, let's take this discussion offline. we discourage patent discussion in WGs]
08:39:42 <bigbluehat> ...I'm happy to connect editors to others folks in other WGs if they want review from
08:39:49 <bigbluehat> s/if/that
08:40:28 <bigbluehat> sandro: we can also check into some of the community groups--though many of them lie fallow
08:41:08 <bigbluehat> paulcj: was curious about community groups and handling on going specs
08:41:19 <bigbluehat> tantek: yes. we want to discuss that, probably tomorrow, along with the recharter discussion
08:41:23 <bigbluehat> ...which is scheduled at 15:30
08:41:41 <bigbluehat> paulcj: sadly, I'm not here tomorrow.
08:41:56 <bigbluehat> sandro: to your question, we can revise our specs after we've shipped them
08:42:07 <bigbluehat> ...but we can use the CG to discuss them, and work toward a later recharter if we find it's needed
08:42:24 <bigbluehat> tantek: we can continue to  do information guides and anything informative in a CG
08:42:52 <bigbluehat> ...one of the things we did to AS2, was have it processed down to zero issues
08:43:09 <bigbluehat> ..and then sent a wider request for input for a "last call" on filing issues
08:43:25 <bigbluehat> ...I'd like to get the thoughts from the editors on how to handle issues
08:43:34 <bigbluehat> ...and whether or not this would work
08:43:45 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I like this in theory, but two weeks is not a lot of time
08:43:56 <bigbluehat> ...and I want to be sure there's enough time to get feedback
08:44:14 <bigbluehat> sandro: yeah. the goal is more "is it ready to start implementing"
08:44:39 <bigbluehat> ...there used to be a "last call" step and it still feels like it's missing
08:44:46 <bigbluehat> tantek: yeah, and that's now part of CR
08:44:52 <bigbluehat> ...and that's more or less what we're proposing here
08:45:04 <bigbluehat> ...bringing that back with this 2-week window / "last call" period
08:45:19 <bigbluehat> ...I'd like to get a temperature gauge on this idea
08:45:26 <bigbluehat> ...seeing some head nods
08:45:31 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: yep.
08:45:47 <bigbluehat> tantek: k. let's plan to do this in mid october
08:46:02 <bigbluehat> sandro: 2-weeks from now is Oct 6.
08:46:26 <bigbluehat> tantek: so. let's put that down and talk to the rest of the WG, that we'll do this 2-week window
08:46:52 <bigbluehat> ...our goal is to say "proposed: take XYZ to CR" and get a round of +1's and push for horizontal review, etc.
08:46:59 <bigbluehat> ...and the horizontal reviews is a different matter
08:47:04 <bigbluehat> ...they might take 2 months
08:47:09 <bigbluehat> ...so we'll give them a different window
08:47:35 <bigbluehat> sandro: is post type discovery ready for this process?
08:47:53 <bigbluehat> tantek: it depends on my time, but I think it'd fall just behind that schedule, but could still happen
08:48:01 <bigbluehat> sandro: and pubsubhubbub?
08:48:12 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: yeah, I think there's still interest and activity
08:48:24 <bigbluehat> tantek: it seems there's been some good github activity recently
08:48:43 <bigbluehat> ...the big question there is whether its ready for FPWD
08:49:00 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I'd like to review it, but I'd like to tackle WebMention and the other things I'm tackling
08:49:25 <bigbluehat> tantek: right. this is sort of like Post Type Discovery. they're not as ready as the others
08:49:40 <bigbluehat> ...they'd be more "at risk" than the others
08:49:44 <bigbluehat> ...they feel pretty small
08:49:53 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: well. pubsubhubbub is pretty large
08:50:09 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: yeah. it's bigger than what it looks like from my guide
08:50:20 <bigbluehat> sandro: signed deliver specifically sounds like an "at risk" feature
08:50:27 <bigbluehat> tantek: or perfect for a later version
08:50:48 <bigbluehat> ...k. we have 10 more minutes left in this item
08:50:57 <bigbluehat> ...we'd talked about doing a November face-to-face
08:51:04 <bigbluehat> ...presumably by then all of our specs would be in CR
08:51:15 <bigbluehat> ...and we'd be evaluating reports and test suites
08:51:20 <bigbluehat> ...to be sure all that was covered
08:51:31 <bigbluehat> ...so the question is, is there value to doing some of this in person?
08:51:43 <bigbluehat> ...or is that something we want to do remotely/virtually over telecom
08:51:43 <tantek> q?
08:51:53 <bigbluehat> csarven: real quick about the dates
08:51:57 <bigbluehat> ...we said October 11th
08:52:09 <bigbluehat> ...is there then sufficient time before a proposed F2F?
08:52:21 <bigbluehat> sandro: we'd be in CR, but we'd possibly be at the end of CR for some of these
08:52:33 <bigbluehat> tantek: it would be sufficient to still have time left in CR
08:52:44 <bigbluehat> ...it'd then be up to myself and the chairs to cover
08:52:59 <bigbluehat> ...it'd be great to quickly turn around exit reports
08:53:12 <bigbluehat> ...it shouldn't block us on a F2F
08:53:16 <bigbluehat> ...so I'd like to get some input
08:53:17 <cwebber2> q+
08:53:27 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: so. my other thought.
08:53:28 <timbl> timbl has joined #social
08:53:53 <bigbluehat> ...our biggest difference between a F2F and the tel-cons is the length of consecutive time.
08:54:16 <bigbluehat> sandro: right a virtual face to face
08:54:29 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: DPUB did this for their use case documents--and with enough coffee it's not too bad
08:54:40 <bigbluehat> tantek: there was some talk that if we did a F2F we could use MIT
08:54:47 <bigbluehat> ...as the potentially preferred option
08:55:00 <cwebber2> q-
08:55:02 <tantek> q?
08:55:02 <bigbluehat> ...and still looking at November
08:55:12 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: I'd be AOK with doing another F2F
08:55:20 <bigbluehat> ...they've been super productive lately
08:55:36 <bigbluehat> ...but if that's to difficult for everyone, it might be good to do the remote f2f
08:55:46 <bigbluehat> ...maybe 2 weeks with 2 half day meetings
08:56:08 <bigbluehat> sandro: M, T and then the next M, T
08:56:21 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: one advantage of the F2F is that folks get less distracted
08:56:45 <bigbluehat> ...I also don't know where I'll be in September
08:56:49 <bigbluehat> tantek: Bali?
08:57:07 <bigbluehat> sandro: we should probably do that in December
08:57:16 <tantek> s/tantek/rhiaro
08:58:00 <bigbluehat> tantek: so there does seem to be some consensus that a f2f would be ideal, and virtual as a workable fallback
08:58:15 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: maybe somewhere in europe?
08:58:40 <bigbluehat> tantek: wseltzer just pointed to our charter
08:58:53 <sandro> wseltzer, can you be a little more specific?
08:58:56 <bigbluehat> ...it says "F2F once a year at minimum, 3 times a year at maximum"
09:00:02 <wseltzer> yes, tht's what I was pointing out
09:00:48 <tantek> wseltzer: are you able to join us in 1.06?
09:00:51 <wseltzer> since f2f's are expensive in time and travel costs, we want to keep an eye on them
09:00:51 <bigbluehat> tantek: the facts are, we have met 3 times this year
09:01:14 <bigbluehat> ...we are interpreting that as we could do that, if enough of us agree
09:01:27 <bigbluehat> ...it would be odd to say, we can't do it if everyone in the group would like to
09:01:42 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I will say that I no longer have a huge budget for this
09:02:00 <bigbluehat> ...so personally closer to the West Coast would be helpful
09:02:04 <bigbluehat> tantek: ok...
09:02:12 <bigbluehat> ...there's a since that F2F would still be useful
09:02:23 <bigbluehat> ...there's a since that the US would be preferred over international
09:02:40 <bigbluehat> ...there's another proposal for Sweden
09:02:52 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: yeah...but I can't really volunteer someone elses time and buliding
09:03:16 <bigbluehat> sandro: personally, West Coast is nicer for me than a European trip that time of year
09:03:32 <kjetil> kjetil has joined #social
09:03:45 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: my preference is Boston because i have lots of "crash spaces"
09:03:58 <bigbluehat> csarven: I wouldn't be able to attend unless its in Bern
09:04:07 <bigbluehat> tantek: oh. here's Wendy
09:04:20 <bigbluehat> wseltzer: yeah. I saw you were chatting about the F2F
09:05:00 <bigbluehat> ...and just wanted to remind that you'd chartered it to 3, but you can certainly override it with approval from the membership
09:05:05 <bigbluehat> s/approval/agreement
09:05:15 <aaronpk> s/a huge budget/external funding/
09:05:40 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: I'm AOK with doing the remote thing
09:05:58 <bigbluehat> tantek: if we do a F2F with remote participation
09:06:18 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: what if we do 2 F2F's one in the US and one in the EU with remote participation
09:06:32 <bigbluehat> tantek: do we have that much activity in the EU?
09:06:52 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: not sure, I'm just continuing to volunteer people who aren't here
09:07:11 <bigbluehat> sandro: I've been part of two-headed f2f's with 6 people in each room
09:07:33 <bigbluehat> tantek: paulj what are your thoughts on a F2F
09:07:49 <bigbluehat> paulj: I am not sure we can attend a F2F
09:07:57 <bigbluehat> tantek: would you be interested in attending virtually?
09:07:59 <bigbluehat> paulj: yes.
09:08:06 <sandro> wseltzer, my sense would be if the WG has unanimity to meet, it's okay to meet more often than the charter (foolishly IMHO) says
09:08:28 <bigbluehat> ...it is difficult because of timezones--telecom is at 2 am in Korea
09:08:50 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: we can schedule it for 24 hours and do it in shifts
09:09:06 <bigbluehat> tantek: let's do a stray poll
09:09:17 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: do we not already have that
09:09:25 <paulj> paulj has left #social
09:09:27 <bigbluehat> tantek: true. anyone object to a F2F?
09:09:49 <bigbluehat> sandro: the one thing maybe I have said, is that I'm likely not up for traveling, but I would be up for remote
09:10:18 <bigbluehat> tantek: aaronpk, cwebber2?
09:10:42 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I'm up for West Coast. Maybe East Coast, depending on the timeframe and cost
09:11:00 <bigbluehat> tantek: if we're committed to the F2F, then perhaps we can pin down the dates for the people most interested
09:12:09 <bigbluehat> sandro: maybe we should look at 14-15th (avoiding the week before because politics)
09:12:38 <wseltzer> s/certainly//
09:12:40 <bigbluehat> tantek: maybe 15 & 16, so we can do Monday for travel
09:12:57 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: that's actually the best week in November for travel
09:13:22 <bigbluehat> tantek: can we discuss 15 & 16 for a F2F?
09:13:28 <bigbluehat> ...any other dates to propose?
09:13:44 <bigbluehat> ...open to counter proposals. this one just seems to be getting traction
09:13:44 <csarven> +1 to Nov 15. -1 to Nov 16.
09:14:03 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: is this for boston?
09:14:34 <bigbluehat> tantek: if your date and location are tied together, that would be good to note
09:14:41 <bigbluehat> csarven: I'd be remote
09:14:50 <bigbluehat> tantek: how about the 17-18th
09:14:55 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: I'll be traveling
09:16:02 <paulcj> paulcj has joined #social
09:16:09 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: I'll be traveling sometime in that month. Those dates are OK
09:16:17 <tantek> s/traveling/traveling earlier that month so that's slightly better
09:16:18 <bigbluehat> tantek: slightly better at least
09:16:36 <bigbluehat> s/tantek: slightly better at least//
09:16:59 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I'd have to stay over the weekend to make it work...
09:17:04 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: I smell an indie web camp
09:17:06 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: good point
09:17:48 <bigbluehat> tantek: k. i think that's probably narrowed down enough that it's worth us bringing to the folks not in the room
09:17:58 <bigbluehat> ...to see if that works for them or have a preference
09:18:09 <bigbluehat> ...particularly Evan
09:18:24 <bigbluehat> ...certainly in the US is easier for him
09:18:38 <bigbluehat> ...Julian is another person that would be great to have at the F2F
09:18:48 <bigbluehat> ...so knowing location needs for them would be great
09:18:49 <sandro> s/Julian/Julien/
09:19:16 <bigbluehat> tantek: any objections?
09:19:23 <bigbluehat> sandro: tantek do you want to send that out?
09:19:27 <bigbluehat> tantek: I'll let you do that.
09:19:35 <bigbluehat> ...we're about 20 minutes behind
09:19:47 <bigbluehat> ...aaronpk are yo ready to talk about web mention next steps?
09:20:07 <bigbluehat> ...since this is that last session before the morning break...
09:20:21 <bigbluehat> ...csarven can you present the issues page for webmention?
09:20:47 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: since we're chatting LDN later today, then there's only 1 issue
09:20:59 <bigbluehat> tantek: actually let's be sure to do the I18N one also, so we're ready for that review
09:21:14 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: summary of issue #57
09:21:34 <kaorumaeda> kaorumaeda has joined #social
09:21:35 <bigbluehat> ...the spec says that while there's no required body as a response it may contain content
09:22:00 <bigbluehat> ...there are responders that send cute messages in response
09:22:10 <bigbluehat> ...mostly they are ACKs--esentially
09:22:26 <bigbluehat> ...some of them do send JSON responses that point to where the notification is stored
09:22:43 <bigbluehat> ...if it's used for things like IndieNews, then they have useful information in the response
09:23:04 <bigbluehat> ...but if it's pure WebMention, the only thing you need in response is the 201 response code
09:23:34 <bigbluehat> ...the I18N concern that that the spec says "a human readable response" but doesn't address I18N concerns at all
09:23:39 <bigbluehat> tantek: it's optional?
09:23:49 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: right. it's a MAY
09:23:58 <bigbluehat> ...and likely no user will actually ever see this--just developers
09:24:05 <bigbluehat> ...the same is true with error responses
09:24:14 <bigbluehat> ...the spec says it MAY contain a description of the error
09:24:31 <bigbluehat> ...sometimes they are explicit about the error
09:24:38 <bigbluehat> ..."we were able to find the page, but unable to find your link"
09:24:44 <bigbluehat> tantek: let me see if I can summarize
09:24:49 <bigbluehat> ...this is about informative developer messages
09:25:01 <bigbluehat> ...one way we can phrase a question to the I18N
09:25:13 <bigbluehat> ...what is your recommendation on optional informative developer messages?
09:25:24 <bigbluehat> ...possibly this is something they have a general recommendation for that kind of thing
09:25:33 <bigbluehat> ...that's one way could narrow that request of them
09:26:42 <bigbluehat> csarven: so I can understand this better, is the assumption that an application is making the request?
09:26:50 <bigbluehat> ...is the developer unaware of the request going through?
09:26:58 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: yeah. generally it's a sender server application
09:27:09 <bigbluehat> ...and it's rarely exposed to the recipient user
09:27:23 <bigbluehat> tantek: what about webmentions from a form request?
09:27:29 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: you would dump it to the user
09:27:36 <rhiaro> s/would/wouldn't
09:27:57 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: so. some of them respond with a formated HTML response that is seen by people
09:28:00 <bigbluehat> q+
09:28:07 <rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
09:28:17 <rhiaro> bigbluehat: the content type can be whatever in response?
09:28:25 <rhiaro> ... Can you just recommend that they use http headers for any language declarations?
09:28:27 <rhiaro> aaronpk: probably
09:28:41 <rhiaro> bigbluehat: and just say respond with http and reference 7240 or whichever one that says what the language is
09:28:46 <rhiaro> ... and you should do http good
09:28:49 <rhiaro> aaronpk: that's probably fine
09:29:01 <rhiaro> bigbluehat: just push it down the stack to http. otherwise you're going to run into defining other things
09:29:06 <rhiaro> aaronpk: and there's reasons to return nothing
09:29:14 <rhiaro> bigbluehat: it's a nice big known quantity youc ould use for that
09:29:18 <rhiaro> ... happy to help find those
09:29:42 <rhiaro> tantek: if you're sending a humanr eadable response you should be sending the folloiwng http headers
09:29:56 <rhiaro> ... the other consideration which i18n is getting at is that there are accept headers, and accept language..
09:30:04 <rhiaro> bigbluehat: there's accept language and content language
09:30:12 <rhiaro> tantek: so you should be looking at accept headers sent by the senders
09:30:17 <rhiaro> aaronpk: is it okay to just say do http?
09:30:42 <rhiaro> bigbluehat: there are two people doing http. The sender and server. You'd have to state that you're going tp ass through anya ccept language stuff to the endpoint and then back trhough.. relyaing those headers?
09:31:01 <rhiaro> tantek: I think all you have to say is the endpoint shoudl look at the accept header of the request and then should respond accordingly per http with the appropriate content and language header
09:31:08 <rhiaro> bigbluehat: should maintain client preferences
09:31:17 <rhiaro> aaronpk: content type applies as well
09:31:37 <rhiaro> tantek: you can narrow the requirements. if the accept header is requesting html do this, otherwise do what you want
09:31:44 <rhiaro> csarven: if it's html it's defintiely inteded to be viewed by a human
09:31:49 <rhiaro> ... plain could go either way, but less likely human in this case
09:32:08 <rhiaro> tantek: so if there was an accept header of application/json then the endpoint could just blow it off
09:32:18 <rhiaro> ... the only accept content type header that's relevant to pay attention to is html
09:32:41 <timbl> timbl has joined #social
09:32:56 <rhiaro> bigbluehat: the ones that the spec should encourage for fallbacks to text/plain or */* so we don't get 415, especially since the body i soptional
09:33:08 <rhiaro> ... i18n might be okay with the body should be ignored but may be persisted
09:33:11 <rhiaro> ... options has this
09:33:16 <rhiaro> ... most people just ignore the body
09:33:37 <rhiaro> ... If you say the meaning of this response is restricted to the headers, you may reuse the contents however you see fit, and possibly take out the humanr eadable bit, and that would totally punt on the problem
09:33:47 <rhiaro> ... Then you can say for more advanced use cases lean on http's defined header patterns
09:33:49 <rhiaro> aaronpk: I like that
09:33:57 <rhiaro> tantek: that is an option to drop that may/recommend completely
09:34:18 <rhiaro> ... you can put a note saying implementations have done x
09:34:26 <rhiaro> aaronpk: does that include removing that example?
09:34:39 <rhiaro> csarven: is that example an error?
09:34:46 <rhiaro> aaronpk: it may already have a status url, doesn't mean it's done
09:35:10 <rhiaro> bigbluehat: the resource exists but not its representation
09:35:17 <rhiaro> csarven: if I go and dereference that..
09:35:28 <rhiaro> aaronpk: what you get will change... gives you a 200 and a json body
09:35:42 <rhiaro> ... This is also something I want to do as an extension
09:35:50 <rhiaro> ... here's how to do status reporting of processing, it's pretty useful
09:35:53 <rhiaro> ... But totally an extension
09:36:13 <rhiaro> cwebber2: that's something we have in media goblin, with submitting a video, it has to transcode, yo udon't wait to give a response
09:36:19 <rhiaro> aaronpk: yeah deservers proper research and spec
09:36:26 <rhiaro> tantek: as an interim you may want to consider an informative note
09:37:37 <rhiaro> bigbluehat: and be clear that th e normative response is 'it happened, here is location'
09:37:43 <rhiaro> tantek: setting expecatiosn for consumers with that information
09:37:49 <bigbluehat> scribenick: bigbluehat
09:38:11 <bigbluehat> tantek: I did want to talk about bigbluehat's point about passing HTTP headers
09:39:57 <bigbluehat> ...is that something you want to state normatively?
09:40:31 <bigbluehat> ...specifically we should be sure that the Accept-* headers are handled
09:40:40 <bigbluehat> ...and perhaps recommend that */* is always included as a safety net
09:41:35 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: so this is solely about client to webmention endpoint. not endpoint to server.
09:41:58 <bigbluehat> ...we can add an informative note for how things happen in a browser context
09:42:12 <bigbluehat> tantek: does that resolve that issue? and solve the I18N issue?
09:42:30 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: right. I'm going to drop the human readable response recommendation from the normative text
09:42:36 <bigbluehat> ...there's still the error response issue
09:43:29 <bigbluehat> ...I will ask for recommendations that have no actual processing needs
09:43:49 <bigbluehat> tantek: that all sounds good. plus bigbluehat's do HTTP properly recommendation
09:44:00 <bigbluehat> ...that should hopefully make the I18N folks happy about it
09:44:21 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I've added those to issue #57
09:44:33 <bigbluehat> ...the other one is issue #48
09:44:59 <bigbluehat> ...this came up during a face-to-face. it has my name on it but I opened it for someone else--probably Ryan of Bridgy
09:45:51 <bigbluehat> tantek: there are situations where this has broken "in the wild"
09:46:02 <bigbluehat> ...so we should probably be ready for this same situation
09:46:23 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: the scenario is an blog post containing 8 links
09:46:30 <bigbluehat> ...and discovery having to be done on all 8 links
09:47:10 <bigbluehat> ...so there are interesting thoughts in the thread
09:47:25 <bigbluehat> ...bear for instance has some interesting thoughts
09:47:51 <bigbluehat> csarven: so to fill in the blanks. is this the sending or the discovery?
09:48:03 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: it's the discovery step
09:48:24 <bigbluehat> ...you may have added a web mention endpoint
09:48:34 <bigbluehat> sandro: this is just about discovery and rediscovery
09:48:46 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: yeah. even re-sending.
09:48:52 <bigbluehat> ...because it's spec'd to recheck
09:49:11 <bigbluehat> ....I feel like it's pretty simple per URL. a simple backup strategy
09:49:19 <bigbluehat> sandro: cache headers?
09:49:40 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: per-url following cache headers is a pretty easy answers
09:49:47 <bigbluehat> ...you should start there.
09:49:59 <bigbluehat> ...I don't think we need to recommend a back-off strategy for per-url
09:50:08 <bigbluehat> ...and document that they should have some back-off strategy
09:50:46 <bigbluehat> ...the challenge is multiple URLs on the same host
09:51:34 <bigbluehat> ...a very common way this actually happens is when I link to your post and your home page
09:51:53 <bigbluehat> ...a lot of people have the mention endpoint on the post, but not on the home page
09:52:08 <bigbluehat> ...so the question is, how do you avoid these failure cases
09:52:38 <paulj> paulj has joined #social
09:52:41 <bigbluehat> breaking for serious coffee needs
09:52:55 <jungbin> jungbin has joined #social
09:53:03 <tantek> resume at 11:05
10:10:00 <KjetilK> KjetilK has joined #social
10:10:01 <Loqi> Aaronpk made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2016-09-22]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100164&oldid=100009
10:10:02 <Loqi> Rhiaro made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2016-09-22]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100165&oldid=100155
10:10:02 <Loqi> Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/LDN CR Transition Request]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100166&oldid=0
10:10:02 <Loqi> Inword made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-09-22]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100161&oldid=100156
10:13:24 <newton> newton has joined #social
10:13:37 <newton> newton has joined #social
10:13:55 <KjetilK> KjetilK has joined #social
10:14:02 <newton> present+ newton
10:14:10 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #social
10:14:20 <Arnaud> present+
10:15:19 <tantek> present+ Ann Bassetti
10:15:30 <paulcj> paulcj has joined #social
10:15:39 <AnnBass> AnnBass has joined #social
10:20:32 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: we looked at OPTIONs during the break
10:20:41 <bigbluehat> tantek: but it's unclear who can control that
10:21:19 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: also robots.txt does have some extension/variation that can state rate limit style statements
10:21:29 <bigbluehat> ...however it's not documented in the standard
10:21:35 <bigbluehat> ...though it is implemented by yandex and bing
10:21:52 <bigbluehat> ...because we don't have any implementation experience around host-level rate limiting
10:22:11 <bigbluehat> ...another option we have is to move the scenario to a client concern
10:22:33 <bigbluehat> ...so they have a way to handle the problem or warn the server
10:22:40 <bigbluehat> ...so it's clear why there are so many GET requests
10:22:51 <bigbluehat> ...another option is making recommendations around multiple URLs
10:23:12 <bigbluehat> ...one is recommending respecting cache headers per URL
10:23:22 <bigbluehat> tantek: sounds like there's enough information to iterate on
10:23:48 <boris_anthony> boris_anthony has joined #social
10:23:55 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: the only thing I'm confident to recommend at this point is stating that the client would include something in the user-agent string
10:24:08 <bigbluehat> ...so that servers know why there's a high level of GET requests
10:24:25 <bigbluehat> csarven: so we've actually only handled it in retry scenarios
10:24:42 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: ActivityPub recommended we handle that
10:24:56 <bigbluehat> sandro: yeah. the webmention scenario is about discovery
10:25:09 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: LDN's discovery is basically the same
10:25:35 <bigbluehat> csarven: the URL could be somewhere else on the web
10:25:42 <bigbluehat> sandro: right it's the same for webmention
10:26:07 <bigbluehat> tantek: right. the follow-your-noise kind of thing
10:27:00 <bigbluehat> csarven: think we should just state "be nice"
10:27:08 <jungbin> jungbin has joined #social
10:27:12 <bigbluehat> ...it's going to be hard to recommend a clear hard limit for people to follow
10:27:31 <bigbluehat> sandro: it's sort of like "how long can a URL be?"
10:27:40 <AnnBass> AnnBass has joined #social
10:27:50 <bigbluehat> tantek: aaronpk can you propose a solution
10:27:50 <AnnBass> present+
10:28:09 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: yep. 1. add a cache header and not try more often than that suggests
10:28:40 <bigbluehat> ...also 2. including the text "webmention" in the User-Agent header so there's an indication of why the requests are coming
10:28:51 <bigbluehat> tantek: anyone object to that?
10:29:38 <tantek> RESOLVED: accept aaronpk's proposal to close issue 48
10:30:01 <Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-09-22]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100178&oldid=100165
10:30:21 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/webmention/issues/48#issuecomment-248865148
10:30:25 <bigbluehat> tantek: next issue?
10:30:52 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: who posted #63?
10:32:35 <sandro> KjetilK,
10:32:51 <bigbluehat> KjetilK: it's just about the HEAD request and a status code
10:33:29 <bigbluehat> tantek: the key is to be sure that the things you need in the later spec are still there
10:33:34 <bigbluehat> ...next issue?
10:34:00 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: things seem done. waiting on a response for #55
10:34:21 <bigbluehat> ...otherwise, we'll see after the I18N review
10:34:48 <bigbluehat> tantek: k. we're through the WebMention issues
10:35:02 <bigbluehat> ...so. now we talk test suite
10:35:11 <bigbluehat> ...does it cover the conformance requirements?
10:35:19 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: great question. let me find that section
10:35:27 <bigbluehat> ...I believe it covers all the sender requirements
10:35:35 <bigbluehat> ...most of the test suite checks the discovery and receiving of them
10:35:45 <bigbluehat> ...there are tests for updates and deletes
10:36:13 <bigbluehat> ...for testing receivers, it basically sends you a mention and then you prove that you can receive it
10:36:46 <bigbluehat> ...I haven't gone through all the MUSTs and SHOULDs?
10:36:52 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: definitely the MUSTs
10:37:01 <bigbluehat> tantek: but it's best to do the SHOULDs too
10:37:08 <bigbluehat> ...it's expected that implementations conform to both
10:37:33 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: there's actually not a lot of MUSTs in receiving at all
10:37:36 <bigbluehat> tantek: should there be?
10:37:43 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: no. lots of that is up to the receiver
10:37:58 <bigbluehat> ...things like what sort of source content it receives
10:38:08 <bigbluehat> ...also the number of redirects to follow...there's no tests for that
10:38:26 <bigbluehat> sandro: you could have it test against infinite redirects
10:39:01 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I could bump what ever number they say they support by 1 and then do that many redirects and see if it succeeds or fails
10:39:23 <bigbluehat> tantek: another way to look at it is interoperability.
10:39:42 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: possibly testing for 1 redirect would be useful for interop
10:39:49 <bigbluehat> tantek: that does sound useful. for receivers right?
10:39:51 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: yes
10:40:05 <bigbluehat> tantek: we're looking at feature coverage and interop
10:40:36 <bigbluehat> sandro: could you testing the infinite redirect case for the error scenario?
10:40:43 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: it's possible. that's not a conformance thing though
10:40:54 <bigbluehat> sandro: but it's a nice thing to have for killing broken code
10:41:08 <bigbluehat> tantek: is that something you cover in security concerns?
10:41:12 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: yes. I believe so
10:41:20 <bigbluehat> ...yes. it's in security considerations
10:41:40 <bigbluehat> tantek: perhaps make sure the redirects bit are there
10:41:54 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: it's there.
10:42:10 <bigbluehat> tantek: don't bother with the infinite case--as it's not needed for the spec validation
10:42:28 <bigbluehat> Arnaud: yeah. if it's not a spec requirement it's not something we have to test
10:43:11 <bigbluehat> tantek: yeah. there are also better things to work on given the amount of time we have in our charter
10:43:44 <bigbluehat> ...you might consider raising the redirect issue with the TAG
10:43:53 <bigbluehat> Arnaud: no. don't do that...
10:45:15 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: you could do it post CR/TR for a way to test non-spec requirement things that people really should still do for a way to help implementers
10:45:24 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I'm going to make a milestone for it
10:45:31 <bigbluehat> tantek: perhaps "feature complete" testing
10:45:55 <bigbluehat> ...things that help implementors do a better job with their implementations
10:46:20 <bigbluehat> ...we need to know from you, aaronpk (and the other editors), that you feel the tests are ready to cover the spec requirements
10:46:25 <bigbluehat> ...and generate reports
10:46:40 <bigbluehat> ...how are the implementation reports coming?
10:46:42 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/webmention/tree/master/implementation-reports
10:46:43 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: missing a few of them
10:46:57 <bigbluehat> ...some of these are self-reported
10:47:06 <tkim> tkim has joined #social
10:47:10 <bigbluehat> ...some of them are check marks generated by the test suite?
10:47:15 <bigbluehat> sandro: is there an easy view of this?
10:47:22 <bigbluehat> tantek: do you have a tabular format?
10:47:27 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I have not done that yet
10:47:33 <bigbluehat> tantek: how much more time do you want for that?
10:47:44 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I can probably aggregate that today
10:47:52 <bigbluehat> tantek: and give a review tomorrow?
10:47:58 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: yeah. that should work
10:48:04 <bigbluehat> sandro: are you all doing the same sort of reporting?
10:48:28 <bigbluehat> rhiaro: we're copying webmention
10:48:37 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: my plan has been to copy the other two
10:48:51 <bigbluehat> tantek: what about AS2?
10:48:52 <csarven> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/blob/master/implementation-reports/template.md
10:49:40 <bigbluehat> tantek: this is a bit of an aside...we'll get to these discussions later in the AS2 section
10:49:52 <bigbluehat> ...aaronpk you'll get use those reports tomorrow.
10:50:00 <bigbluehat> ...we know there are more tests
10:50:20 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: and there are things in the reports that don't necessarily have code tests
10:50:29 <bigbluehat> tantek: than that's a good hint that there's more to add to the test suite
10:50:39 <sandro> ( looking back dreamily on https://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out -- which took live feeds of test results )
10:50:44 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: do you need to ask people to re-run tests if you change the tests?
10:50:48 <bigbluehat> tantek: yes.
10:51:01 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: if they're conformance requirements
10:51:09 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: the implementation report template is complete
10:51:16 <bigbluehat> ...that does reflect the spec
10:51:21 <bigbluehat> ...so I'm not going to be changing the template
10:51:32 <bigbluehat> tantek: right now that's self reporting
10:52:06 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: my understanding is that manual testing is an option
10:52:14 <bigbluehat> sandro: right. that's fine.
10:52:19 <bigbluehat> tantek: code would be nicer
10:52:24 <bigbluehat> sandro: some scenarios can't be tested with code
10:52:26 <bigbluehat> tantek: sure.
10:52:38 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: and some of these webmention tests can't be either and have to be validated by humans
10:53:39 <bigbluehat> tantek: my preference would be that if you can write a code test, then you should and we should make that the conformatant requirement
10:53:54 <bigbluehat> ...I know in CSS there's a pretty high bar for claims of passing
10:54:03 <bigbluehat> ...now. css specs often take a very long time to excite CR
10:54:17 <bigbluehat> ...but my preference is that we do have code tests for implementations as much as possible
10:54:39 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I agree that makes since.
10:54:51 <bigbluehat> ...however, I will say it's possible to write some of these but also impractical
10:55:06 <bigbluehat> ...for instances the asynchronous cases
10:55:18 <bigbluehat> ...because there's no defined way to say that it's "complete"
10:55:49 <bigbluehat> ...we haven't specified a way to know when it's done
10:56:02 <bigbluehat> ...so it'd be a lot of work and not even a guarantee that it's confromant
10:56:18 <bigbluehat> sandro: it's more like writing code to help a human do the testing
10:56:40 <bigbluehat> tantek: so. it's probably best that we spot check implementations that they actually work if mashed together
10:56:50 <bigbluehat> ...as far as us taking this to a CR transition call
10:57:10 <bigbluehat> ...so we can say that we've done manual testing and put implementations against each other
10:57:16 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: yeah. this is even a challenge in practice
10:57:33 <bigbluehat> ...sometimes you don't know if it worked because the mentions are moderated
10:57:52 <bigbluehat> cwebber2: could you have a manual mode for you suite?
10:58:12 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: I could, but it's a lot of work and only marginally valuable
10:58:49 <bigbluehat> sandro: because webmention doesn't keep things around it's tricker to know if it worked
10:59:00 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: and the spam avoidance features make it particularly tricky to test
10:59:14 <bigbluehat> sandro: if we could go backwards we cold spec features specifically for testing/validation, but it's too late for that
10:59:37 <bigbluehat> tantek: whatever method we employ, we need to talk the director through the interop situation.
11:00:27 <bigbluehat> ...ideally, anyone could come to our test reporting and find conformant implementations
11:00:47 <bigbluehat> ...it would certainly be nice. we don't have to. but it would make things smoother and more impressive
11:01:01 <bigbluehat> Arnaud: well. let's be real. I don't think anyone's ever lied about pasting these sorts of tests
11:01:17 <bigbluehat> tantek: yeah. I'm not implying that, just that there may be bugs that the test suite doesn't cover or find
11:01:50 <bigbluehat> sandro: there are scenarios where spot checks are done across multiple implementations
11:01:56 <bigbluehat> ...this is especially true with vocabularies
11:02:16 <bigbluehat> ...you can test that the terms are there, but an human usually validates that they're in the right place and used the right way
11:02:26 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: k. just to summarize, the requirements for PR is
11:02:43 <bigbluehat> ...implementation reports validate 2 or more implementations of every feature
11:02:53 <bigbluehat> ...ideally done via automated tested
11:02:56 <bigbluehat> tantek: it's a huge plus
11:03:03 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: and what was the other requirement?
11:03:15 <bigbluehat> sandro: all issues address. and wide review
11:03:19 <bigbluehat> ...did we miss security review?
11:03:29 <bigbluehat> tantek: yes. it's in the spec
11:03:31 <sandro> https://w3ctag.github.io/security-questionnaire/
11:03:32 <Loqi> [Mike West] Self-Review Questionnaire: Security and Privacy
11:03:34 <bigbluehat> ...wait. is it filled out?
11:04:00 <bigbluehat> sandro: specifically https://w3ctag.github.io/security-questionnaire/
11:04:01 <Loqi> [Mike West] Self-Review Questionnaire: Security and Privacy
11:04:05 <bigbluehat> tantek: it's not currently required
11:04:13 <bigbluehat> ...but it's very helpful
11:04:18 <bigbluehat> sandro: specifically the privacy bits
11:04:23 <bigbluehat> ...given that this is a social protocol
11:04:40 <bigbluehat> tantek: how do folks feel about this?
11:04:46 <bigbluehat> ...I filled this out for CSS UI
11:05:04 <bigbluehat> ...I went through it. I didn't find any real surprises, but it was helpful to think about these issues.
11:05:14 <bigbluehat> ...after having done the self-review I found it helpful
11:05:28 <bigbluehat> ...I'd like us to consider adding this as a requirement for our specs
11:05:38 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: where would I put this?
11:05:54 <bigbluehat> tantek: in security considerations
11:05:57 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-ui-3/#security-privacy-considerations
11:06:02 <Loqi> [Tantek Çelik] CSS Basic User Interface Module Level 3 (CSS3 UI)
11:06:04 <bigbluehat> ...or an appendix would work
11:06:13 <bigbluehat> ...which is what I did for CSS3 UI
11:06:36 <bigbluehat> ...I think it would be pretty short
11:07:08 <bigbluehat> ...I think it's useful for the privacy interest group specifically
11:07:14 <bigbluehat> csarven: should I just pick applicable ones?
11:07:21 <bigbluehat> tantek: no. you answer them all
11:07:29 <bigbluehat> csarven: that seems possible
11:08:11 <bigbluehat> ...that's only for convenience right?
11:08:14 <bigbluehat> tantek: it's for anyone
11:08:20 <bigbluehat> csarven: I definitely see the value of it
11:08:31 <bigbluehat> ...what about the others?
11:08:54 <bigbluehat> ...should the I18N self review go in there too?
11:09:02 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/TR/international-specs/ isn't exactly a questionaire...
11:09:03 <bigbluehat> tantek: let me split your question
11:09:05 <Loqi> [Richard Ishida] Internationalization Best Practices for Spec Developers
11:09:15 <bigbluehat> ...should we be doing self reviews? that's the first question
11:09:19 <bigbluehat> ...and that's a yes
11:09:19 <aaronpk> here's the checklist https://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs
11:09:35 <bigbluehat> ...on the should we put them in the spec question, it depends on the spec
11:10:31 <csarven> i18n as well as a13y
11:10:35 <bigbluehat> ...if it's heavily about privacy and security, then that should be there
11:11:08 <bigbluehat> s/a13y/a11y
11:11:40 <bigbluehat> sandro: another approach to doing this is the issue tracker
11:11:42 <cwebber2> access.bit.ly
11:11:44 <csarven> :) I meant a11y
11:11:48 <csarven> can't count
11:12:50 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: that sounds great
11:12:57 <bigbluehat> ...and then go to horizontal with those filled out
11:13:12 <bigbluehat> tantek: that does sound like a reasonable approach
11:13:27 <bigbluehat> Arnaud: yes. the sooner we make these horizontal request the better
11:13:40 <bigbluehat> sandro: yeah. we said we'd definitely do it this week
11:13:58 <bigbluehat> Arnaud: yeah. sadly it's tricky because if you ask too soon, then they just tell you to come back later
11:14:24 <bigbluehat> sandro: reviewers want the specs to be simpler and easier to review
11:14:30 <bigbluehat> ...because they also have time pressures
11:17:00 <tantek> q?
11:17:23 <bigbluehat> q-
11:18:21 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions-about
11:18:24 <bigbluehat> tantek: I want to minimize the unexpected requirements for editors
11:18:40 <bigbluehat> ...and narrow in on things that all the editors agree too
11:19:32 <bigbluehat> ...so I've put MicroPub after lunch and AS2 after that
11:20:01 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: we'll have just 40 minutes for lunch
11:20:13 <bigbluehat> ...and I think MicroPub will take as long or longer than WebMention
11:20:20 <bigbluehat> tantek: perhaps there's enough overlap that it'll be faster
11:20:31 <bigbluehat> ...and to rhiaro's point it should help the other editors
11:20:43 <bigbluehat> AnnBass: are you going to the AC meeting?
11:20:45 <bigbluehat> tantek: yes.
11:21:03 <bigbluehat> ...and the other groups will chair the combined meetings
11:21:18 <bigbluehat> adjourned for lunch
11:21:29 <AnnBass> (for the record, I am also going to AC meeting)
11:56:42 <paulj> paulj has joined #social
12:00:50 <jungbin> jungbin has joined #social
12:03:31 <harry> harry has joined #social
12:07:07 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
12:13:06 <rhiaro> https://http.cat/418
12:13:39 <aaronpk> new hangouts url: https://hangouts.google.com/call/xvjzbgdgzve6rcl7l3sflmucque
12:14:00 <aaronpk> naps https://indiewebcat.com/2016/09/15/1/photo.jpeg
12:14:08 <cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2
12:15:43 <tkim8> tkim8 has joined #social
12:15:53 <cwebber2> tantek: let's look through open micropub issues, how about starting with #7
12:16:21 <cwebber2> aaronpk: the bottom 4 we can ignore, we're waiting on response, the main one I wanted to talk about was #55
12:16:44 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I think cwebber2 may have experience with this
12:17:22 <bigbluehat> q+
12:17:25 <cwebber2> aaronpk: for right now it's mentioned that when the application should return json, it returns the application/json content type
12:17:33 <tantek> q?
12:17:34 <tantek> ack bigbluehat
12:17:39 <cwebber2> cwebber2: not sure why it would need a different media type
12:17:41 <kaorumaeda> kaorumaeda has joined #social
12:17:53 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: there's no need to switch media types as long as processing is the same
12:18:06 <cwebber2> ... using the profile= thing may be okay but also may be unnecessary
12:18:22 <cwebber2> tantek: is there any specific requirements
12:18:29 <cwebber2> aaronpk: no it's just some specific terms
12:18:58 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: so, we use the json-ld context, but you could reference a schema that says here are the keys we have to have, but you could just ship it as application/json and that's fine
12:19:38 <cwebber2> ... if your processing model hasn't changed from json that might be fine
12:19:58 <cwebber2> ... what json-ld says "this term has this meaning throughout the tree"
12:20:04 <AnnBass> AnnBass has joined #social
12:20:16 <cwebber2> aaronpk: right and with json-ld it says certain kinds of structure are not allowed
12:20:21 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: yes like lists of lists
12:20:30 <cwebber2> tantek: what do json based snowflake apis do
12:20:51 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: github uses its own vendored media type, but a profile object is a better type
12:21:08 <cwebber2> ... usually it points to an html spec, it uses an @context
12:21:26 <cwebber2> sandro: is github's model common
12:21:43 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: sometimes, but profile is starting to be pushed because it's dereferenceable
12:21:55 <cwebber2> tantek: you need to register them potentially, etc?
12:22:20 <cwebber2> sandro: I am on the ietf types mailing list, but they aren't that common
12:22:26 <tantek> issue URL?
12:22:31 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: with hal-json and etc, they have _links and etc
12:22:34 <tantek> GH issue URL
12:22:37 <tantek> ?
12:22:43 <cwebber2> ... that one did change the processing model, it's now hypermedia, etc
12:22:57 <cwebber2> ... so if you're just saying I have expected keys or I have a value, etc
12:23:27 <cwebber2> aaronpk: there's a place where the actual json struture is expected, which is where microformats2-json (?), which is restricted in its structure in that it has only arrays somewhere
12:23:50 <cwebber2> aaronpk: this is a subset of json, so it may return a microformats 2 json, so
12:24:14 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: I'll show you the web annotations spe
12:24:15 <cwebber2> c
12:24:22 <csarven> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/
12:24:28 <Loqi> [Robert Sanderson] Web Annotation Data Model
12:24:29 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/
12:24:30 <Loqi> [Robert Sanderson] Web Annotation Protocol
12:24:39 <bigbluehat> application/ld+json;profile="http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld"
12:24:46 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: it looks like that ^
12:25:45 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: the other issue is like with hal you want application/json etc, or you say no I'm a hal client, give me the links
12:25:57 <cwebber2> ... profile situation you're still operating as json so you can say this is what it means / conforms to
12:26:12 <cwebber2> ... but if user didn't bother to look this up it can still be treated as json successfully
12:26:40 <cwebber2> tantek: do we have any implementations that want to be content negotiating?
12:26:57 <cwebber2> aaronpk: there's nothing in micropub that can/does do content negotiation?
12:27:14 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: so minting another media type is hard
12:27:40 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/55
12:27:41 <cwebber2> aaronpk: and this proposal is to do another new media type, but that's not the main issue, so if there's another way to do it, that would be good
12:28:13 <jungbin> jungbin has joined #social
12:28:13 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: if he can use application/json + profile...
12:28:41 <cwebber2> tantek: is there anything else in they can look at; his use case is I want to quickly determine if I made an error
12:28:58 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: it's also the right way to do versioning
12:29:08 <cwebber2> ... you have the option of issueing a new profile when you send a url
12:29:21 <cwebber2> tantek: is this worth a normative change that breaks open the CR?
12:29:41 <cwebber2> tantek: if it's a SHOULD it's a normative change... maybe make it a note
12:30:11 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: I've had experience that it's a MUST that will break open CR
12:30:49 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: we define in our most recent work that our application/ld+json(?) + profile....
12:31:09 <cwebber2> tantek: that's the thing is, he wants to use it for quick error verification, so he can't rely on it for his use case, I'm not sure what the value is
12:31:43 <paulcj> paulcj has joined #social
12:31:51 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: beyond the first post he goes deeper into error reporting
12:31:58 <cwebber2> aaronpk: there's an error responses section
12:32:11 <cwebber2> tantek: if that point if a client is making this request they've already read the spec
12:32:41 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: he may be referring to it, but there's a registered media type for a json shape that looks like that or really close
12:33:10 <cwebber2> aaronpk: this feels like overkill to me, because at the point that you're talking to a MP server you know you're working with a MP server
12:33:46 <cwebber2> tantek: I'm going to call out the versioning point, I'm getting a consensus that we don't need to make any changes for this version of micropub, so part 1 let's resolve on that if there's no objections to close this issues with no changes for this version of micropub
12:34:15 <cwebber2> csarven: the successful one doesn't do it, so why should it do anything different
12:34:24 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I think he was pointing out that the successful ones do do it, so
12:34:36 <cwebber2> tantek: maybe leave this issue open for a future version?
12:34:50 <cwebber2> tantek: and maybe have a way to have a micropub 1.1 server to distinguish its responses
12:34:52 <cwebber2> q+
12:35:11 <cwebber2> aaronpk: right because at that point you know what version of a micropub server you're talking to
12:35:27 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: if you don't start now, it's a gues
12:35:46 <cwebber2> tantek: if it's new verisons you can make it a MUST that says it's a new version
12:36:22 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: right with the caveat that json clients will fall down to application/json, so if they don't get the profile they'll fall down to version 1 (?)
12:36:32 <cwebber2> aaronpk: that's worth calling out in a new version, if there is one
12:36:50 <cwebber2> tantek: that also has the nice side effect of buying us time for finding out what that would mean
12:37:03 <cwebber2> ... it sounds like json-ld contexts for that?>
12:37:08 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: yes that seems to be what's happening
12:37:27 <cwebber2> tantek: so in the future, if that catches on, we might have better guidance
12:37:33 <bigbluehat> as an aside, here's the application/vnd.error+json specification https://github.com/blongden/vnd.error
12:37:43 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I want to add for the notes for this of doing the json type is that this is what oauth does
12:37:58 <tantek> q?
12:38:04 <tantek> ack cwebber
12:38:11 <rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
12:38:21 <rhiaro> cwebber2: The versioning thing might be something relevent to all specs if we end up taking this path
12:38:44 <rhiaro> ... Talking to the pumpio people, how they are going to migrate, say maybe we should have AP things put a header or something that indicates
12:38:50 <rhiaro> tantek: I thought discovery was different
12:39:02 <rhiaro> cwebber2: yeah discovery uses a different media type, that might be sufficient, just thinking briefly
12:39:16 <rhiaro> ... maybe later on, and we can discuss when we get to AP, have a general discussion about what to do in the group
12:39:26 <rhiaro> ... Or decide that if in the future we have new versions putting a must for a version number solves it
12:39:31 <rhiaro> ... That was just the first point I wanted to make
12:39:43 <rhiaro> ... But the second thing I wanted to say is we started to say a resolution but we didn't capture it
12:40:07 <rhiaro> scribenick: cwebber2
12:41:05 <cwebber2> RESOLVED: We're not going to make any changes, stick with application/json, but add a note about consideration for future versions, esp if there are incompatible other changes that a mimetype would help with.  If there are conventions in the future more specific we could follow that.
12:41:22 <cwebber2> RESOLVED: We're not going to make any changes, stick with application/json, but add a note about consideration for future versions, esp if there are incompatible other changes that a mimetype would help with.  If there are conventions in the future more specific we could follow that.  (Regarding issue #55.)
12:42:04 <cwebber2> tantek: if we have a general approach to versioning for our specs that would be good to discuss... we can see if there are changes to pull into micropub we can cross that bridge when we get there
12:42:15 <cwebber2> tantek: ok to move forward?
12:42:28 <cwebber2> aaronpk: yes, can I  close issue even though commenter has not replied?
12:42:52 <cwebber2> tantek: I think you should provide commentary from the group with that explaination and say
12:43:05 <cwebber2> sandro: ... "if that's good enough can we close this issue"?
12:43:09 <cwebber2> tantek: yes
12:43:27 <cwebber2> ... if there's still an issue then, we can bring up at next telecon
12:43:32 <bigbluehat> here's RFC6902 which defines the "profile" Link relationship and the profile="" media type parameter discussed just now: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906#section-3.1
12:43:51 <tantek> I'd like to give ActivityPub the ability to the right thing for ActivityPub since it is still a WD, and then if there's anything from that that we need to pull back into Micropub we can cross that bridge when we get to it.
12:44:15 <bigbluehat> In sum: "The objective of profiles is that they allow instances to clearly identify what kind of mechanism they are using for expressing additional semantics, should they follow a well-defined framework for doing so"
12:44:18 <cwebber2> tantek: I think that makes all your issues awaiting commenter?
12:44:37 <cwebber2> aaronpk: #54 commented this morning... great
12:44:46 <tantek> https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/54
12:45:47 <cwebber2> aaronpk: this issue was about when querying the micropub endpoint for ? properties of the post, if it doesn't exist it currently errors, this says we should use 404, but I'm arguing against that
12:45:59 <jungbin> jungbin has joined #social
12:46:08 <cwebber2> ... if it replies with http 404 it says not found
12:46:28 <cwebber2> ... so 400 bad request I think catches that case
12:46:50 <cwebber2> ... and the actual text in rfc2068 about http response codes would actually forbid using 404
12:46:58 <cwebber2> sandro: can you back up and say how we got to this point?
12:47:41 <cwebber2> aaronpk: yes, part of micropub involves doing a GET request, which gives you a microformats 2 json response
12:47:52 <timbl> timbl has joined #social
12:47:57 <cwebber2> ... if it doesn't exist, it will be 400, and say "not found"
12:48:06 <cwebber2> sandro: it should probably give the thing...
12:48:10 <cwebber2> aaronpk: it probably didn't
12:48:43 <cwebber2> sandro: if you got a 400 vs 404 you might want to convey that....
12:48:59 <cwebber2> sandro: conceptually I think you should make it clear you're acting as a proxy
12:49:36 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: 400 is the better one to use because it does malformed request syntax, etc...
12:49:57 <cwebber2> sandro: I completely agree that 400 is the right thing, 404 is wrong, I was digging a side issue to explain it
12:50:22 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: 404 is cacheable by default, so you could cache that your endpoint is gone, even though it's actually something farther out
12:50:39 <cwebber2> aaronpk: http 404 would be terrible because it would be handwavey and actually cause failures
12:50:53 <cwebber2> sandro: it's about query parameters...
12:51:10 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: what if the resource is one hop away...
12:51:37 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I will note that he added a comment this morning
12:51:53 <cwebber2> ... a lot of other tech doesn't use http error codes at all
12:52:23 <cwebber2> tantek: any objection to closing this issue without change?
12:52:50 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: the one problem was that you said "not found" despite using a different request, so I think that's what tripped him up
12:53:00 <cwebber2> sandro: "indirect resource not found" or something
12:53:09 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: I like "the guy behind me not found"
12:53:36 <cwebber2> aaronpk: there are two parameters using this request, one is q=source, the other is url=blah
12:53:55 <cwebber2> ... so source not found, that seems to make it explicit and not be likely to be confused
12:54:12 <cwebber2> ... so suggestion to close this issue is to change error code to "source not found"
12:54:31 <cwebber2> ... is that an ok change to make?
12:54:40 <cwebber2> sandro: that's a magic string in the code?
12:55:29 <cwebber2> tantek: so this is a breaking change?
12:55:48 <cwebber2> sandro: I'd say put this on a list for "if we go to CR do this, otherwise..."
12:56:08 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I think that making this change is nice, but it's maybe not worth it
12:56:20 <cwebber2> tantek: but it would also require updating implementations
12:56:56 <cwebber2> aaronpk: so there are no test results in my repo of test results, but there cweiske has started to collect some on the indieweb wiki
12:57:13 <cwebber2> ... interestingly, none of the implementations appeared to support q=source at all
12:57:35 <cwebber2> ... mine implements it, but mine isn't open source, so
12:57:43 <cwebber2> tantek: does another one implement it?
12:57:49 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I think so, but think it wasn't open source
12:58:18 <cwebber2> tantek: another way to look at it would be, if we got horizontal review from an http working group would we get feedback like "fix this, you must fix it to continue"
12:58:27 <cwebber2> ... if that's the case this is the chance you get to fix it
12:59:28 <rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
12:59:34 <cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2
13:00:03 <cwebber2> aaronpk: right now the spec does not require the client do anything with these errors, so...
13:00:07 <tantek> q?
13:00:13 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: they currently have the same value as their description more or less
13:00:24 <cwebber2> ... there's no processing expected beyond that right
13:00:46 <cwebber2> aaronpk: right most of the actions the client would take are based on the http code, like forbidden vs post is not found
13:01:03 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: one thing is that 400 has two potential values
13:02:58 <cwebber2> aaronpk: so the this is the only http response defined that has 2 potential string values, the case of the source not found is descriptively covered by the first one "invalid request", which technically covers "this doesn't exist
13:03:10 <cwebber2> ... since we weren't telling clients to do anything different anyway
13:03:36 <cwebber2> tantek: and dropping the string wouldn't change implementaitons right
13:04:29 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: I would make an editorial note to say strings using status codes from rfc, 400 Bad Request, and then say "this is the magic string"
13:05:42 <cwebber2> sandro: you don't say what to do if you don't get those strings, probably say MUST ignore, but...
13:05:49 <cwebber2> sandro: why would a machine even care
13:08:00 <cwebber2> sandro: what would happen if an existing implementation already has one of these, and sends it to someone else
13:08:17 <cwebber2> ... so I suggest you add an editorial comment explaining what we always intended, which is fall back to invalid request
13:08:25 <cwebber2> ... so fall back to using numeric code
13:08:43 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: from a testing perspective this whole section is a MAY
13:09:04 <cwebber2> sandro: if an error code is returned, it MUST....
13:09:49 <cwebber2> sandro: if someone sends you an error code that isn't that string, it's a MUST
13:10:05 <cwebber2> sandro: they're okay by leaving it out, or by using one of these 4 strings
13:10:23 <AnnBass> AnnBass has joined #social
13:11:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> Now I remember.  I had started with something like q=source but had switched over to just fetching the object from html since no one had q=source support at the time
13:12:22 <harry> harry has joined #social
13:12:27 <cwebber2> tantek: you're making a conformance change but it doesn't break any existing implementaitons, which we can explain to the director
13:13:42 <cwebber2> bigbluehat: the question is, now that we've hit it, is how extensible is this space
13:13:55 <cwebber2> tantek: if it's open ended, you don't need to deal with it
13:14:27 <aaronpk> PROPOSED: Close #54 by dropping "not_found" from the list of error codes because that case was already covered by "invalid_request", and add a sentence saying how to handle unexpected error codes, and add a header to the bullet list of error codes to indicate this is the list of error strings defined by the spec
13:16:07 <cwebber2> csarven: would this change make it through the changelog?
13:16:13 <cwebber2> tantek: I've made that request yes
13:16:39 <sandro> sandro: and we're explicitly not saying how other error string values get their meaning, or establish shared meaning.   We're not going to do a registry of these things.
13:17:02 <sandro> (agreement)
13:17:28 <sandro> (I'm not thrilled, but this doesn't seem worth the effort)
13:17:42 <timbl> timbl has joined #social
13:20:08 <cwebber2> aaronpk: state of the test suite is I've listed the tests I have to write out
13:20:09 <aaronpk> https://github.com/aaronpk/micropub.rocks/issues
13:20:14 <cwebber2> ... here's the list of tests to write
13:20:29 <cwebber2> ... what I have so far is I have the framework for someone interacting with these tests
13:20:45 <cwebber2> ... that's all ready to start actually writing the functionality of each test
13:20:52 <cwebber2> tantek: so you have a plan but have to write the tests
13:20:59 <cwebber2> ... do you have a rough idea when?
13:21:06 <cwebber2> aaronpk: when do you think you'll do it?
13:21:16 <cwebber2> er s/aaronpk/tantek/
13:21:22 <cwebber2> tantek: how about by the 4th
13:22:06 <hadleybeeman> rrsagent, pointer?
13:22:06 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-social-irc#T13-22-06
13:22:09 <paulcj_> paulcj_ has joined #social
13:22:09 <bigbluehat> From the earlier topic, here's how OAuth2 defines it's error "magic string" space (and extensibility) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-8.5
13:22:51 <cwebber2> aaronpk: let's log that as our status on that...
13:22:59 <cwebber2> tantek: do you have imlementation reports?
13:23:09 <cwebber2> ... when do you think you can have the implementation report ready?
13:23:15 <cwebber2> aaronpk: what's more important
13:23:29 <cwebber2> tantek: accurate tests are important
13:24:02 <cwebber2> tantek: do you also want to try to get that template by the 4th?
13:24:04 <cwebber2> aaronpk: no
13:24:08 <cwebber2> tantek: week after?
13:24:11 <cwebber2> aaronpk: yes
13:24:40 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk, I can probably help with the template too
13:25:48 <newton> newton has joined #social
13:26:06 <aaronpk> https://indieweb.org/Micropub/Servers
13:26:23 <aaronpk> https://indieweb.org/Micropub/Clients
13:26:31 <cwebber2> aaronpk: cyc has been doing implementation reports for clients and servers
13:26:53 <cwebber2> ... these are the open source implementations he's been looking at, he's been testing out some features
13:27:08 <cwebber2> tantek: also a good example of a summary, which we don't have for our projects
13:27:47 <cwebber2> aaronpk: he's also checking of specific properties of h-entry or other properties
13:28:11 <cwebber2> ... so he's being more thorough in some ways, and not as much in others, but he's also only checking open source implementations
13:28:18 <jasnell> jasnell has joined #social
13:29:25 <ben_thatmustbeme> s/cyc has been/cweiske has been/
13:29:25 <cwebber2> (discussion about, what do the links mean?)
13:30:03 <cwebber2> tantek: I'm mentioning that since there aren't implementation reports, this helps us go to CR
13:30:31 <cwebber2> ... theoretically at that telecon ask the group to go to PR
13:31:50 <cwebber2> aaronpk: it's definitely how I'm going to be influenced to create the test suite too, it's nice to be able to share the tests stuff
13:32:54 <cwebber2> sandro: so I showed earliest working group stuff, and I was joining at CR, and I did test results and went more than needed, I felt like there was a nice feedback loop of people seeing their results as their feed, which they liked *anecdote*
13:33:34 <sandro> static snapshot of that output: https://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out
13:33:34 <cwebber2> aaronpk: he does have media endpoint on the list, there's less implementation now, my clients and servers support it, but that's one more thing where we need to get implementation on the server
13:33:55 <cwebber2> tantek: this is good, we don't have anything like this for webmention do we?
13:33:57 <paulj_> paulj_ has joined #social
13:34:03 <cwebber2> aaronpk: no
13:34:08 <cwebber2> tantek: for as2, I think we don't either?
13:34:15 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I don't think so...
13:34:29 <cwebber2> tantek: okay, well it sounds good and you gave us dates and etc
13:34:50 <cwebber2> ... having a test suite with list of features, we can re-evaluate on oct 11th telecon on where we are
13:35:02 <cwebber2> sandro: we might consider expecting that to be an extra long telecon?
13:35:07 <cwebber2> ... 90 minutes at least?
13:35:10 <cwebber2> tantek: good idea to look into
13:35:25 <cwebber2> ... does anyone object to extending talk on 11th to 90 or 120 minutes?
13:36:31 <cwebber2> tantek: we have about 25 minutes before break / AC meeting
13:36:45 <cwebber2> sandro: I'm skipping the AC meeting, will go to i18n
13:37:09 <cwebber2> tantek: is there anything left for schedule, such as activitypub next steps, that we could start looking at
13:37:35 <cwebber2> cwebber2: we could start looking at activitypub early?
13:37:50 <sandro> scribe: sandro
13:37:56 <sandro> topic: ActivityPub
13:37:58 <cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypub/issues
13:38:18 <sandro> only one substantial, I think
13:38:38 <sandro> https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypub/issues/108
13:39:00 <sandro> cwebber2: I don't think that's normative, is it?
13:40:05 <sandro> tantek: Were you thinking of adding the security question answers?
13:41:09 <sandro> cwebber2: This doesn;t affect interop
13:41:29 <sandro> aaronpk: Plenty of documentation about this
13:42:05 <sandro> tantek: security considerations aren't normative
13:42:21 <sandro> sandro: yeah, this isn't 2119 "should", it's a more general thing
13:42:53 <aaronpk> RRSAgent, pointer
13:42:53 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-social-irc#T13-42-53
13:42:59 <sandro> cwebber2: we do have security considerations, but I'm not sure if I got "non-normative" labels right.
13:43:04 <aaronpk> RRSAgent, generate minutes
13:43:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-social-minutes.html aaronpk
13:43:19 <aaronpk> RRSAgent, make minutes public
13:43:19 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', aaronpk.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
13:43:21 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
13:44:12 <sandro> tantek: now is the time to be making all your last-minute normative changes before you go to CR
13:44:18 <AnnBass> me has to leave for AC meeting; am facilitating the first discussion
13:44:32 <sandro> tantek: and you should label every section non-normative that doesn't have normative content
13:45:02 <sandro> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypub/issues/107
13:45:09 <sandro>  "source" field #107
13:46:12 <sandro> cwebber2: This is a problem when the HTML is produced by something....   I'd like to add that?
13:46:15 <tantek> q?
13:46:47 <sandro> cwebber2: the source will not be rendered by the client, but it'll be carried
13:47:12 <sandro> aaronpk: clients that support editing MUST work on source?
13:47:22 <sandro> cwebber2: optional, it's a MAY
13:47:31 <sandro> rhiaro: source might get out of sync
13:48:09 <kaorumaeda> kaorumaeda has joined #social
13:48:10 <sandro> cwebber2: I don't really care.   people are probably using the same client to edit.
13:48:43 <sandro> cwebber2: the CLIENT converts, the server never has to understand the source
13:49:13 <sandro> cwebber2: this is what happens in clients currently -- they do markdown -to- html then lose the markdown
13:49:34 <sandro> rhiaro: I'd have client go to & from html
13:49:53 <sandro> cwebber2: But I want emacs orgmode, where the client can't convert from HTML
13:50:15 <sandro> aaronpk: So what happens if someone edits the HTML, using another client?
13:50:34 <sandro> cwebber2: then you delete the source
13:51:16 <sandro> aaronpk: I'd like to see all the cases considered.
13:51:49 <sandro> aaronpk: in Micropub, the server is the final authority on the content, and clients are expected to deal with HTML, or not understand the syntax and present to user as text/plain.
13:52:01 <sandro> aaronpk: It might be orgmode or markdown or something.
13:52:21 <sandro> tantek: show us in spec?
13:52:42 <sandro> aaronpk: it's not written down in a lot of detail
13:53:01 <jasnell> jasnell has joined #social
13:53:13 <sandro> aaronpk: the motivation /expectation is the person with the mp server knows what the original content should be, and they'll be using multiple clients that don't know what the user wants.
13:53:35 <sandro> .. rather than having the clients know lots of formats
13:53:47 <sandro> cwebber2: this is useful when editing your own posts
13:54:06 <sandro> cwebber2: maybe if you like seeing the original markup / sourcecode in some way
13:54:12 <sandro> q+
13:54:17 <paulj> paulj has joined #social
13:54:24 <sandro> cwebber2: not everyone's going be writing in plain text
13:54:42 <sandro> aaronpk: If the client doesn't understand format, then treat as plain text
13:55:19 <sandro> aaronpk: I avoid markdown because it's not standard
13:56:27 <bigbluehat> in other news text/markdown is now a Thing: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763
13:57:12 <sandro> sandro: I think you can make this work, by protmpting the user, and maybe refusing, in some cases
13:57:13 <aaronpk> oh boy, which markdown is this?
13:57:42 <bigbluehat> aaronpk: see the `variant` parameter
13:58:00 <sandro> cwebber2: html to other formats is hard and error prone
13:58:07 <sandro> .. that's not good enough for me
13:58:28 <sandro> cwebber2: or we could let the server handle it, but then I can't do org-mode !
14:01:27 <sandro> sandro: if you can't understand the source, you must prompt the user and maybe delete the source
14:01:39 <sandro> aaron: if the server gets content without source, it must delete the source
14:02:19 <bigbluehat> oh. and here's another bit of RFC goodness that defines what to do with what might be inside a text/markdown response body: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7764
14:02:26 <sandro> sandro: but client  must prompt user before losing source
14:02:30 <sandro> aaron: yes
14:02:34 <boris_anthony> boris_anthony has joined #social
14:03:00 <sandro> rhiaro: I'm going to hate this.    The client I make wont want to deal with source.
14:03:22 <sandro> tantek: (somethjing about medium)
14:03:56 <tantek> s/(somethjing about medium)/Medium provides a nice editor that seems to edit HTML and sends it back to the server
14:04:46 <sandro> rhiaro: But every client has to add a whole user interaction around this
14:05:22 <tantek> PROPOSED: Add "source" field feature to ActivityPub per issue 107
14:05:58 <sandro> +1 with the caveats above about clients never losing or corrupting data or getting out of sync without human approval
14:06:27 <sandro> aaronpk: I'm not thrilled with this architecture.   I want the server to be authoritative.
14:06:38 <sandro> cwebber2: this is more like the state of the world in AP
14:06:42 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #social
14:07:17 <rhiaro> +1 at risk though I'm a bit spooked about having to build user interaction if a source is found because I always only want to handle html content
14:07:19 <Loqi> [@bigbluehat] "caffeinated" is a personal "At Risk" feature right now at #TPAC2016 ...time for a break @SocialWebWG #amiright?! (http://twtr.io/1HHiBjiurwt)
14:07:21 <sandro> cwebber2: pumpa and dianara, the clients do the conversion, not the server.
14:08:04 <cwebber2> +1 at risk
14:08:12 <tsyesika> +1
14:08:18 <sandro> (my +1 is at risk)
14:08:32 <csarven> +0 add it and see what breaks/works ;)
14:08:49 <aaronpk> +0 with the addition of servers being required to drop source if an update was made with HTML, and recommending that this destructive edit be prompted to the user
14:08:56 <bigbluehat> +0 on the feature; +1 on the "at risk"-ness of it
14:09:11 <sandro> tantek: I'm not sure we have consensus around any one design here
14:09:16 <csarven> MIME? Is that still around
14:09:21 <sandro> tantek: so please take this to the issue discussion
14:11:14 <tantek> ben_thatmustbeme: could you present+ yourself?
14:11:26 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #social
14:12:24 <newton> newton has joined #social
14:13:44 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+
14:13:51 <ben_thatmustbeme> sorry i forgot that tantek
14:14:28 <newton> newton has joined #social
14:14:31 <paulj> paulj has joined #social
14:17:29 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #social
14:27:24 <newton> newton has joined #social
14:35:52 <KevinMarks> Medium wrote about content editable and their editor
14:36:36 <aaronpk> https://hangouts.google.com/call/vgg2rqyvnzge7lv76rthuhzk4ae
14:36:56 <KevinMarks> https://medium.engineering/why-contenteditable-is-terrible-122d8a40e480#.b1nyq5dyz
14:37:59 <timbl> timbl has joined #social
14:38:00 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #social
14:38:17 <addison> addison has joined #social
14:38:47 <rhiaro> scribenick: sandro
14:39:20 <sandro> topic: i18n
14:39:22 <sandro> (introductions)
14:39:24 <sandro> Addison
14:39:26 <sandro> Amy Guy
14:39:28 <sandro> Aaron
14:39:34 <sandro> Sarven
14:39:42 <sandro> Sandro
14:39:45 <sandro> Felix
14:39:49 <sandro> r12a
14:40:12 <sandro> (missed two people whose names I couldn't spell)
14:40:23 <addison> http://w3c.github.io/i18n-activity/reviews/
14:40:30 <newton> newton has joined #social
14:40:31 <r12a> r12a has joined #social
14:40:45 <dae_> dae_ has joined #social
14:41:03 <newton> newton has left #social
14:43:35 <dae_> dae_ has joined #social
14:43:47 <r12a> https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/39
14:45:33 <addison> https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/commit/82a49a3fa6ff6b19923344eae1288bf367f3b2bf
14:46:27 <sandro> addison: that looks okay
14:46:45 <sandro> resolved: close https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/39 with everyone happy
14:46:58 <sandro> aaronpk: that was my only still-open micropub one
14:47:01 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/webmention/issues/57
14:47:05 <atai2> atai2 has joined #social
14:47:06 <sandro> on webmention:
14:47:20 <sandro> aaronpk: "no language support"
14:47:58 <sandro> .. wm is a server-to-server protocol.   In normal operation the response body is never seen.
14:48:10 <sandro> .. it only comes up when people are developing / debugging
14:48:18 <sandro> .. some developers never realized there was a response body
14:48:39 <sandro> .. talking about it today, we're curious about for error responses, is there any typical guidance?
14:48:48 <sandro> addison: Several classes of things have occured
14:48:54 <sandro> .. in past standard
14:49:03 <sandro> .. ietf has idefault
14:49:10 <sandro> .. not a very global-friendly thing
14:49:38 <sandro> .. we generally look at, if you're going to exchange natural lang text, you should including an indication of the language
14:49:53 <sandro> .. so it's a good idea to provide language information if it's available
14:50:14 <sandro> .. for APIs that interact with users, language negotiation is good
14:50:36 <sandro> .. so the server can respond with the language the user wants
14:50:42 <sandro> .. we not ulta-concerned
14:51:06 <sandro> sandro: can we just use http header?
14:51:12 <sandro> addison: that's what I recommended
14:51:24 <newton> newton has joined #social
14:51:51 <sandro> aaronpk: we're planning to change the example to not include a body, because there's no functionality in having a body
14:52:01 <sandro> aaronpk: since we're not recommending that
14:52:11 <sandro> .. and adding a note explaining what implementations have done.
14:52:38 <sandro> .. and saying some endpoints, when the request comes from the browser, give a full HTML response with all the negotiation
14:53:17 <sandro> .. so include something about using HTTP best practices around Accept-Language
14:53:33 <sandro> addison: example would just be HTTP 201 Created
14:54:53 <sandro> aaronpk: do we want to remove specific recommendation of returning human-readable text
14:56:10 <sandro> addison: if you take out human readable, we wouldn't care very much
14:56:40 <sandro> r12a: Content-Language can have multiple languages, though, so maybe it's not ideal
14:56:52 <sandro> addison: although that's not best practice
14:57:31 <sandro> r12a: if you happen to have multiple languages, it could be a problem
14:59:14 <sandro> sandro: sounds like: if you include a body, you should include a content-language
14:59:39 <sandro> aaronpk: in practice, there's usually very little information returned from API to reduce attack vector
14:59:48 <sandro> addison: when running in production
15:00:06 <sandro> aaronpk: in 3.2.3 error responses
15:01:00 <sandro> addison: when the server is down, you probably don't have a lot more information.  It's nice to do i18nish things, but whatever.
15:01:18 <paulj> paulj has joined #social
15:01:23 <sandro> aaronpk: send to target URL that doesn't exist
15:01:54 <sandro> addison: that's okay
15:02:03 <sandro> .. can leave that section alone
15:02:49 <sandro> addison: We'd have nothing to comment on if there's no example there.
15:03:21 <sandro> addison: I dont know what else you'd put in a response body
15:03:40 <sandro> aaronpk: Some return a data dump, some have an English sentence, etc
15:03:49 <sandro> .. none of it affects interop
15:04:06 <sandro> addison: cool
15:04:31 <sandro> aaronpk: Noting in issue....
15:05:30 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/webmention/issues/57#issuecomment-248931056
15:06:02 <sandro>  aaronpk commented 16 seconds ago
15:06:02 <sandro> Notes from discussion with i18n:
15:06:02 <sandro>     Remove example english text from response body
15:06:02 <sandro>     Don't include "bad examples" of returning English without returning a language header
15:06:03 <sandro>     Error response section does not need an i18n recommendation because it does not suggest any response body
15:06:36 <sandro> r12a: we don't have 167 marked as green
15:07:01 <sandro> addison: your change will get rid of 167 because there's no longer a text/plain
15:07:29 <annbassetti> annbassetti has joined #social
15:07:34 <sandro> aaronpk: In POST the body is form-encoded URL
15:07:55 <sandro> addison: we were just responding to your response examples
15:08:55 <sandro> addison: These are just URLs, its fine
15:09:16 <sandro> addison: don't include charset with form-encoded.   It's with text/plain.
15:09:45 <sandro> addison: that's why you MUST pre-define that this is utf-8, because there's no where in the protocol to say that.
15:11:40 <sandro> https://github.com/w3c/webmention/issues/56
15:11:41 <r12a> https://github.com/w3c/webmention/issues/56
15:11:50 <sandro> aaronpk: we just covered this
15:12:22 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: woohoo
15:14:18 <sandro> sandro: we'll be sending you two more specs right away, and two more soon-ish
15:14:41 <sandro> cwebber2: ActivityPub is unlikely to have much i18n, because it mostly just is a user of AS2
15:14:42 <cwebber2> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/ is activitypub
15:14:44 <Loqi> [Christopher Allan Webber] ActivityPub
15:14:55 <sandro> csarven: In Linked Data Notification (LDN) it's just HTTP
15:14:56 <cwebber2> https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/ is linked data notifications
15:15:30 <cwebber2> https://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs
15:15:48 <sandro> addison: Give us URLs and maybe we can take a quick glance, ... or you can look at our lost
15:16:10 <addison> s/at our lost/at our list/
15:16:29 <sandro> addison: And then let us know when you've done that
15:16:44 <sandro> aaronpk: on json....?
15:16:58 <sandro> addison: No charset of json, defined as utf8
15:17:04 <addison> www.org/International/
15:17:15 <sandro> addison: On our homepage is a huge box on how to request review.
15:17:18 <r12a> https://www.w3.org/International/review-request
15:17:51 <sandro> addison: mostly it means send email.
15:18:29 <sandro> sandro: so review is likely to go more smoothly if we've done the checklist?
15:18:40 <sandro> addison: generally, but not everything is clear from the checklist
15:19:12 <sandro> aaronpk: just to clarify, including charset with json is wrong?
15:19:19 <sandro> addison: that's right, don't do it.
15:20:03 <sandro> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/205
15:20:12 <sandro> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/354
15:21:15 <sandro> r12a: It's hanging around because I suggested adding a note saying it's useful to including a language when you're dealing with strings
15:22:36 <sandro> cwebber2: the normalization algorithm loses it.  I see.
15:24:15 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#naturalLanguageValues
15:24:18 <Loqi> [James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0
15:24:27 <cwebber2> http://json-ld.org/playground/?startTab=tab-expanded&json-ld=%7B%22%40context%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fns%2Factivitystreams%22%2C%22%40language%22%3A%22fr%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22Note%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Une%20note%20br%C3%A8ve%22%7D
15:24:33 <cwebber2> http://json-ld.org/playground/?startTab=tab-expanded&json-ld=%7B%22%40context%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fns%2Factivitystreams%22%2C%22%40language%22%3A%22fr%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22Note%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Une%20note%20br%C3%A8ve%22%7D
15:25:29 <cwebber2> http://json-ld.org/playground/#startTab=tab-nquads&json-ld=%7B%22%40context%22%3A%5B%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fns%2Factivitystreams%22%2C%7B%22%40language%22%3A%22fr%22%7D%5D%2C%22type%22%3A%22Note%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Une%20note%20br%C3%A8ve%22%7D
15:27:27 <boris_anthony> boris_anthony has joined #social
15:27:39 <sandro> r12a: In "When using [JSON-LD] mechanisms to produce or consume Activity Streams 2.0 documents, the @language property MAY be used " ... we'd expect SHOULD there
15:29:18 <sandro> sandro: I think the MAY is about which way you provide lang, not whether you provide lang.
15:30:48 <sandro> sandro: so maybe somewhere at the start of 4.7 we can say "You should put the language information in there somewhere"
15:30:56 <sandro> addison: that's what we'd be looking for
15:32:01 <sandro> sandro: so Example 16 is bad....
15:33:14 <sandro> r12a: we at one point asked if you could put language in every example
15:33:22 <sandro> r12a: but didn't insist.
15:34:52 <sandro> sandro: anyone want to speak for AS2?
15:35:29 <sandro> sandro: I'd like it'd be fine to make these editorial changes
15:35:41 <sandro> cwebber2: It is kind of distracting to have it in every example
15:36:05 <sandro> addison: Maybe state that we omited it from examples, with a ...
15:39:39 <sandro> sandro: the At Risk phrasing is very confusing
15:39:58 <sandro> addison: it can be hard to convince people to implement
15:40:37 <sandro> cwebber2: there's a possible foot-aimed-gun, with developers just hardcoding "en".
15:40:48 <sandro> addison: SHOULD helps with that, MUST tends to avoid that more
15:40:58 <sandro> s/avoid/cause/
15:42:26 <sandro> addison: I understand some developers aren't terribly motivated
15:43:03 <sandro> sandro: Our concern is developers might then just not use AS2
15:43:18 <sandro> addison: we understand...
15:43:22 <jasnell> jasnell has joined #social
15:44:02 <sandro> addison: you could provide a more elegant way to specify the language, but that would be a different pain.
15:44:21 <sandro> cwebber2: that's what @language without the { } is
15:44:30 <sandro> .. it gets lost in RDF-land
15:46:37 <sandro> sandro: it seems reasonable TO ME to update many/most examples to be like example 19, AND to add a note explaining the importance of including language information, eg around Example 16.
15:47:45 <sandro> sandro: but there may be other views in the WG, and implementor community
15:48:12 <sandro> r12a: yes, we'd be happy with that
15:48:24 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #social
15:48:56 <atai> atai has joined #social
15:49:39 <sandro> rhiaro: thinking about Social Web Protocols...
15:50:00 <sandro> rhiaro: Any examples are going to use AS2
15:50:53 <newton> newton has joined #social
15:51:22 <sandro> sandro: doesn't MF2 have the same problem?
15:51:34 <sandro> aaronpk: yes?
15:52:06 <sandro> rhiaro: why hasn't this been noticed before?
15:54:11 <sandro> rhiaro: so the examples in the MicroPub spec that are in English?
15:54:16 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
15:54:39 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub/#new-note
15:54:41 <Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Micropub
15:54:59 <sandro> (example of posting some natural language text, with no language indicator)
15:56:06 <sandro> MicroPub is using MicroFormats (MF2), and MF2 doesn't happen to handle lang
15:58:48 <AnnBassetti> AnnBassetti has joined #social
15:59:40 <sandro> rhiaro: so, this was swept under the rug, and now we've noticed.  What do we do about it?
16:00:16 <sandro> bigbluehat: there is a proposal to add lang to MF2, but it's not mature
16:01:48 <sandro> rhiaro: Does MP have to resolve this dependency on MF?   Can MP proceed without this problem being solved?
16:02:31 <sandro> addison: it's not exactly your problem that you based MP on MF2, but it is the problem of the international community.   Maybe some day we tackle i18n for MF.
16:04:38 <tantek> for reference: https://github.com/microformats/microformats2-parsing/issues/3
16:04:38 <tantek> input welcome!
16:06:18 <addison> I think we are coming to the conclusion that we (I18N) might ought to do a review
16:08:27 <tantek> I think that would be welcomed, certainly speaking for myself. Appreciate the consideration!
16:12:50 <jasnell> jasnell has joined #social
16:14:33 <jasnell_> jasnell_ has joined #social
16:18:26 <addison> https://www.w3.org/International/wiki/ContentMetadataJavaScriptDiscussion
16:18:26 <r12a> https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-lang-why
16:19:36 <sandro> (from earlier)
16:19:39 <sandro> aaron: we can handle bidi and non-english text, it's just not labeled
16:20:02 <sandro> aaron: best plan: write a note in MP saying we recognize this doesnt do lang, please see MF issue, and when that gets updated it will automatically be incorportated by reference.
16:20:35 <sandro> sandro: yep, sounds fair.     references to things that are updated in place are well known, if a bit challenging.  For example: unicode.
16:21:02 <sandro> addison: You don't want a social web protocol that references Unicode 7, so it doesn't have emogi!
16:21:19 <rhiaro> can't have a social web without emoji
16:22:24 <aaronpk> lang=emoji
16:22:33 <rhiaro> o.O
16:22:45 <sandro> ❤️ emoji >
16:23:07 <aaronpk> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151012-will-emoji-become-a-new-language
16:23:12 <rhiaro> 💩
16:23:15 <sandro> 04❤
16:23:49 <sandro> 🍔
16:24:38 <tantek> 👥🌐
16:25:35 <tantek> https://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2016-09-22/line/1474561478592 😃
16:25:36 <Loqi> [tantek] 👥🌐
16:26:01 <rhiaro> http://💩.amy.gy
16:26:11 <rhiaro> aww loqi, let down
16:26:31 <aaronpk> rhiaro, needs h-entry
16:28:09 <rhiaro> FIN
16:28:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-social-minutes.html fsasaki
16:28:17 <csarven> http://💩.csarven.ca/
16:28:19 <rhiaro> trackbot, end meeting
16:28:19 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:28:19 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been rhiaro, cwebber, tantek, KjetilK, aaronpk, tsyesika, Benjamin_Young, csarven, newton, Arnaud, Ann, Bassetti, AnnBass, ben_thatmustbeme
16:28:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:28:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-social-minutes.html trackbot
16:28:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:28:29 <RRSAgent> I see no action items