IRC log of social on 2016-10-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:03:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:03:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/25-social-irc
17:03:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:03:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:03:08 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:03:08 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
17:03:09 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:03:09 [trackbot]
Date: 25 October 2016
17:03:13 [rhiaro]
I can hear but break-up-y. Won't be able to scribe today
17:03:13 [eprodrom]
present+
17:03:24 [aaronpk]
present+
17:03:32 [rhiaro]
Probably my wifi
17:03:34 [wilkie]
present+
17:03:34 [akuckartz]
present+
17:03:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
present+
17:03:47 [rhiaro]
present+
17:03:53 [eprodrom]
scribe?
17:03:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
I haven't in a while
17:04:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
17:04:31 [sandro]
Zakim, who is on the call?
17:04:31 [Zakim]
Present: eprodrom, aaronpk, wilkie, akuckartz, ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro
17:04:42 [sandro]
present+
17:04:45 [sandro]
Zakim, who is on the call?
17:04:45 [Zakim]
Present: eprodrom, aaronpk, wilkie, akuckartz, ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro, sandro
17:05:22 [cwebber2]
present+
17:05:46 [cwebber2]
I heard "I'm going to ____"
17:06:05 [akuckartz]
ben_thatmustbeme++
17:06:06 [Loqi]
ben_thatmustbeme has 176 karma (57 in this channel)
17:06:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: approval of minutes from last meeting
17:06:57 [eprodrom]
PROPOSAL: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-18-minutes as minutes for 2016 Oct 18 meeting
17:06:59 [rhiaro]
+1
17:07:13 [akuckartz]
+0 (was not present)
17:07:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: if you have not already reviewed those, please review them
17:07:16 [cwebber2]
+1
17:07:20 [sandro]
+1
17:07:21 [wilkie]
ben_thatmustbeme: last week was a killer too but you haven't lived until you've scribed a F2F tho
17:07:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
17:07:24 [wilkie]
+1
17:07:31 [eprodrom]
+1
17:07:56 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-18-minutes as minutes for 2016 Oct 18 meeting
17:08:05 [wilkie]
ben_thatmustbeme: then you've lived a good and fulfilling life! :)
17:08:42 [eprodrom]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-11-17
17:08:43 [Loqi]
Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting at MIT (F2F8)
17:08:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: we do have our F2F coming up in november, 3 weeks away, if you have not yet signed up please do so, so we can plan logistics
17:08:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... link in IRC
17:09:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... it will likely be one of our last F2F meetings, if not our last and we have a lot of talk about there
17:09:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... sando, do we have anything else to discuss there?
17:09:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: not unless anyone has questions
17:09:38 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: AS2
17:09:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: AS2
17:10:06 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
17:10:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: we had a lot of discussion of AS2 going to CR last week
17:10:09 [jasnell_]
jasnell_ has joined #social
17:10:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we have a few bugs to fix, and some other items
17:10:29 [cwebber2]
eprodrom, I should be able to get implementation reports in, though I might need to be pinged
17:10:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i did not have much time to work on it this week but i will be pushing it this week
17:10:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... mostly its editorial issues, a few normative issues that we resolved that i just need to close, and we need implementation reports
17:11:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i would really like to have our first implmentation of pump.io by F2F
17:11:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i'll also be doing an implementation report for the validator and hopefully james will have one too
17:11:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... there was a question about twitter using AS2. i reached out last week, but I am still waiting for a response back
17:12:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... are there any questions for me or james on AS2?
17:12:23 [rhiaro]
I just want to raise for myself mostly that a human readable version of the AS2 namespace is still on my TODO list
17:12:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: if not i'm good moving along for now
17:12:44 [rhiaro]
(and adding the extensions section with AP terms, etc)
17:13:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: <<repeats rhiaro comments from chat>>
17:13:11 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: ActivityPub
17:13:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: activitypub
17:13:14 [cwebber2]
shoot
17:13:17 [cwebber2]
my phone disconnected
17:13:25 [tantek]
present+
17:13:37 [tantek]
q?
17:13:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: lets hold off on that while cwebber2 reconnects
17:14:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: PubSub
17:14:38 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: I did apparently volunteer last week to create the test suite, so far i have a plan of the list of tests to write but i plan to make progress on that this week.
17:14:45 [cwebber2]
reconnected
17:14:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... over the last 24 hours or so there have been a whole bunch of issues opened on pubsub
17:15:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i would love to get more eyes on them
17:15:12 [sandro]
https://github.com/w3c/pubsub/issues
17:15:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i tackled half of them already this morning to try and get some resolved if possible
17:15:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... link in IRC
17:15:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: any in here you find needs discussion today? or are we not ready for that yet?
17:16:06 [Loqi]
[@jirikuncar] Welcome PubSub protocol standard on W3C 🎉 https://www.w3.org/TR/pubsub/ (http://twtr.io/1JVB3kx39eC)
17:16:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: there were some suggestions to rename it... again
17:16:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: lets leave that to the thread
17:16:14 [tantek]
oh dear really?!?
17:16:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i think most of these are fine to allow to continue to talk on the threads
17:16:32 [wilkie]
if that's the biggest issue that doesn't seem so bad haha
17:16:33 [Loqi]
awesome
17:16:48 [aaronpk]
new name issue: https://github.com/w3c/pubsub/issues/10
17:16:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i really hope we don't persue that much further, the name took enough effort
17:16:56 [tantek]
FWIW I can live with "PubSub" and have yet to hear anything even remotely more palatable
17:17:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: on the test suite, do you have an intention to do an online test server similar to the web webmention works?
17:17:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: yes, similar to webmention and micropub, a tool that acts as the other end for you
17:18:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
and will track what features are available and build the implementation report from that
17:18:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: have you had a chance to look, are there normative issues here?
17:18:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: there are some around timing and retrying
17:18:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... some are editorial, some are tightening up language
17:19:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... like defining that a time in seconds must be positive integers, things like that
17:19:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: so some are normative, okay
17:19:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... anything else on this agenda topic?
17:19:27 [eprodrom]
q?
17:19:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: can i ask one big question?
17:19:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... when we first talked about it, i raised the issue of payload type. have we thought more about what we are doing there?
17:20:06 [aaronpk]
https://github.com/w3c/pubsub/issues/24
17:20:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i haven't seen any discussion, but maybe it happened...
17:20:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: no, we haven't. There is one issue around diffing versions. I don't think its going to be possible to actually specify that around that
17:21:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i think this is going to be around notifiying and not around the actual content delivery
17:21:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: so there is going to need to be another spec?
17:21:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i think there will need to be a profile of the spec, similar to oauth2
17:22:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: so for me to use this to syndicate blog posts, this isn't going to tell me how to do it?
17:22:10 [aaronpk]
https://www.w3.org/TR/pubsub/#publishing
17:22:11 [Loqi]
[Julien Genestoux] PubSub
17:22:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: you will need this spec and the documentation from the hub you are using
17:22:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: that seems sub-optimal
17:22:39 [tantek]
does anyone actually use the payload in practice?
17:22:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i agree, also the publishing section is empty, which is a seperate issue, but similar
17:22:43 [tantek]
q+
17:22:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: that leaves me confused as to what the use of this spec is
17:23:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: it provides interop on some aspects
17:23:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: the flip side is that we have real world experience where it is working
17:23:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: but thats not via this spec
17:23:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i don't think you are asking the right question
17:24:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think there is clearly something that works, but what works is not being specified by this spec
17:24:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i'm hoping that we can fill that in based on experience
17:24:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: one of the issues there is that the spec tries to be content type neutral
17:25:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... to do that, it can't specify that with diffing types
17:25:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... the most interoperable way to do that, is to use XML feeds, specifically RSS and ATOM
17:25:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... one way is to put those in to the spec
17:26:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... but then its not really content type neutral
17:26:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: one way is to put what you just said in to the spec and then give people links to where they can handle those
17:26:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i feel a little uncomfortable with that, i feel like some of it will have to be in the spec
17:27:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i think its a reasonable approach to document "heres the content-types that we have found to work as of today" and then give people some idea of how to make their own types work
17:27:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i guess from an implementor perspective, i'd rather document what works now, rather than dance around it for now
17:28:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... as for right now i believe we have interop with RSS, ATOM, and h-feed
17:28:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: yes
17:28:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: and then it becomes a list for people to get into the party with
17:28:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i guess it becomes a question of where we put that? normative, as another note?
17:29:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i'm guessing that h-feed is maintained in the same way as mf2?
17:29:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: yes, i think we could docuemnt the parsing of it at least
17:30:00 [tantek]
no I said the format specs document the parsing of the formats
17:30:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: I'm trying to picture how that text is, for RSS i feel that would be a paragraph
17:30:05 [aaronpk]
https://documentation.superfeedr.com/subscribers.html
17:30:08 [Loqi]
Subscribers
17:30:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek, can you document that better
17:30:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
you spoke fast
17:31:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: let me link to the documentation for superfeedr, (in irc), let me say that content type is also only important for fat-pings
17:31:36 [tantek]
s/i think we could docuemnt the parsing of it/the individual format specs (RSS, Atom, h-feed) already document how to parse the formats, what we can do is specify what to do with that parse result, which tends to be very similar in each of those cases
17:31:46 [eprodrom]
q?
17:31:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... with thin pings there is no content in the notification, then its outside of the spec for the subscriber to actually fetch the original URL, and then its all outside of this mechanism
17:32:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: it sounds like we could get a lot of use out of getting like 4 content types in there and that would get the 80/20
17:32:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... it sounds like sandro needs to make an issue in the issue tracker
17:33:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: one of the nice effects of this is that we can treat each of these as somewhat orthoganally, and when we find one we can make tests based on that content type
17:33:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... and we can just put any others at-risk
17:34:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i'll just be direct, i don't think anyone is publishing as2 with pubsub, we could put it at-risk and if we need to get through CR and we don't see any implmentations, we can also spin it off in to a note and then that note can be maintained by the community group or whatever
17:35:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: its been a while, but its things like "do you send the entry or the feed with one item in it" literally that can be solved with one sentence, and that would help a lot with interop
17:35:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: the only part i had on that was the different was the diffing vs the fat-ping
17:36:13 [eprodrom]
No more pings!
17:36:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... the thin-ping is to send the URL only and then the diffing is seperate, if we use the fat-ping method, we have to specify what goes in to that body
17:37:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we would have to consider those two approaches independently as well
17:37:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: anything more to discuss on pubsub?
17:37:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: whats the next step?
17:37:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: sounds like the next step is to address the issue queue, i count around 17, with considerable discussion
17:37:45 [cwebber2]
q?
17:37:51 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
17:38:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... sounds like we'll be having some next steps
17:38:04 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: ActivityPub
17:38:56 [cwebber2]
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/
17:39:33 [cwebber2]
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/162
17:39:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: hello, last week we talked about bringing AP to CR this week. We had some really involved issues that we ended up having to go through. They are all now marked as 'waiting for commentor', the 4 that were filed by bengo. I don't know what the process is on this, i have answered them with i htink an acceptable response, with the exceptions of 162. I am not quite sure what was being asked
17:39:52 [tantek]
zakim, who is here?
17:39:52 [Zakim]
Present: eprodrom, aaronpk, wilkie, akuckartz, ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro, sandro, cwebber, tantek
17:39:55 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jasnell_, Zakim, RRSAgent, eprodrom, akuckartz, tantek, timbl, cwebber2, KjetilK, strugee, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, raucao, csarven, pdurbin, bigbluehat, bitbear,
17:39:55 [Zakim]
... dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot
17:40:09 [tantek]
hmm, we should get bengo here to discuss
17:40:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we are waiting on those 4 issues, hopefully bengo will respond within the next week
17:41:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... there are some other issues, but they seem like they will be easier
17:41:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... there are 2 issues i feel should be discussed in the group
17:41:24 [tantek]
!tell bengo can you join us in the telcon 2016-11-01? we need your help resolving some ActivityPub issues interactively so we can get move it along toward PR!
17:41:24 [Loqi]
Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
17:41:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: so you have 2 issues that you need to be addressed by the group, lets try that now
17:42:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: lets get those 2 first we'll then go on to SWP and we'll come back and see what time we have for additional ones
17:42:29 [cwebber2]
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/155
17:43:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: 155 is potentially thorny. Someone has asked to have a history to show old revisions of an item
17:43:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i don't think that would be trivial method unless we do it in a history entry
17:43:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i feel its a bit late to add to AP core
17:43:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i think it makes sense as an extension
17:44:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i think it makes more sense to have a collection of activities like lifecycle, here is its creation, its edits, comments, here's its delete
17:44:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... so using the activities to show the history
17:44:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... that said, if you wanted to have a history property, then it would make sense that way
17:45:05 [tantek]
has anyone implemented this a all?
17:45:06 [tantek]
q+
17:45:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: i would be okay to add that with marking it at-risk, but i feel like its likely not something thought through well enough
17:45:36 [tantek]
q+ to note stage of an idea / proposal vs stage of a spec
17:45:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... do you think we should put it as "for later version" and leave it as an extension for now
17:46:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i htink that makes sense
17:46:09 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
17:46:09 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to note stage of an idea / proposal vs stage of a spec
17:46:11 [tantek]
yes, for "later version" would be appropriate
17:46:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: is it okay to mark it as later version and close it or leave it open
17:46:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i would leave it open
17:47:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: the general concern here is that activity pub is basically like trying to be in CR, even though we aren't. That means we really don't get to add new features unless its a major blocker for implementation
17:48:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... once we recognize that, what level of maturity is it? is it an idea? prototyped? already working for people? technically we can add anything to the spec thats within the scope of the charter, but generally we have been trying to push for people to incubate them before putting them in a working draft
17:48:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... from my understanding no one has even prototyped this
17:48:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: thats my understanding too
17:49:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: great, i will respond to the issue as such
17:49:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: and encourage them and even possibly help with incubation
17:49:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: i'm reasonably optimistic that we will be able to go to CR next week
17:49:58 [akuckartz]
cwebber2++
17:49:58 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 76 karma
17:50:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: SocialWebProtocols
17:50:11 [eprodrom]
rhiaro: ?
17:50:27 [tantek]
cwebber2++ thanks for your diligence with the flood of ActivityPub issues. My goodness.
17:50:27 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 77 karma
17:51:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: there was a request for me to update SWP with new doc status, we haven't had the transition calls for LDN or PubSub so i didn't know if we wanted to wait
17:51:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think its worth it for FPWD of PubSub
17:51:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we don't actually have the transition called scheduled yet do we?
17:51:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: we're working on it
17:52:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: we may not need it
17:52:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: there are two things we need on that call
17:52:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: we are aiming to get them published next tuesday one way or another
17:52:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: are we ready to go to another WD with an update of FPWD of pubsub?
17:52:53 [cwebber2]
tantek, thank you :)
17:53:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: if we do a resolution, you would be able to publish it
17:53:26 [rhiaro]
http://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/#changes-since-2016-10-12
17:53:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... is there any reason not to do that, is there anything else we want in there?
17:53:31 [rhiaro]
(that fragment is broken, willf ix)
17:53:40 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: publish a new working draft of Social Web Protocols
17:54:00 [cwebber2]
+1
17:54:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
17:54:07 [rhiaro]
+1
17:54:10 [eprodrom]
+1
17:54:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: amy is that ok?
17:54:13 [tantek]
+1
17:54:13 [wilkie]
+1
17:54:28 [rhiaro]
There's a bunch of stuff that needs to go in there still, but if we're not waiting for other document status updates, there's no need to wati for that
17:54:28 [akuckartz]
+1
17:54:49 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: publish a new working draft of Social Web Protocols
17:54:50 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
17:54:51 [tantek]
I like this rhythm of updating our overview document when we update the individual documents.
17:55:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: you have the resolution you need
17:55:16 [tantek]
I think it helps the outside confidence in our overview document, which is pretty important for understanding our work as a whole.
17:55:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we are near the end of our agenda, i believe we have webmention next
17:55:40 [aaronpk]
sandro, let me know if this captures it for you https://github.com/w3c/pubsub/issues/27
17:55:44 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: Webmention
17:56:04 [aaronpk]
https://github.com/w3c/webmention/issues/67
17:56:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: the only thing i wanted to talk about today, we that in webmention we need to change a reference to the WHATWG spec instead
17:56:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... its a more up to date spec of what a URL is, especially for hte purposes of webmention
17:57:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... its technically a normative change, but it won't effect any implmeentations
17:57:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: its my understanding that this is the kind of change we can make between CR and PR
17:57:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: its a change in reference between what and what?
17:58:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: from RFC?? and the WHATWG URL spec?
17:58:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: whats the difference between them? i'd have to run it by ralph
17:58:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... if you want to just send me a draft and CC chairs
17:59:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i've seen the webapp grounps switch as well, so i think this makes sense, we're not the first group or spec doing this
17:59:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we can provide citations for that
17:59:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: and there is no intended difference?
17:59:43 [eprodrom]
q+
17:59:48 [eprodrom]
ack eprodrom
17:59:51 [cwebber2]
lol
17:59:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: it should not effect implmentations, but its a more up to date reference
18:00:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: is there enough of a difference here that its worth this effort?
18:00:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... can we just gloss over this and move on?
18:00:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think its a due dilligence kind of detail, we're getting close to PR and this is crossing your T's and dotting your I's
18:01:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... the intent was to cite what a URL was, not to specifically reference an RFC
18:01:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i think thats a good detail to fix before we go to PR
18:01:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
.... its good that we're only talking about this kind of detail at this point
18:02:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: it makes sense to me, i just don't want to spend a lot of cycles on this unless its a worthwhile change, and it sounds like this is something everyone will be doing anyway
18:02:33 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #social
18:02:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... do we have other discussions on webmention?
18:02:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: do we want a group resolution on that issue pending ralphs approval?
18:03:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we might as well get it out of the way so we don't have to talk about it again
18:03:32 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: adopt https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ as URL standard reference for Webmention
18:03:46 [tantek]
+1
18:03:47 [eprodrom]
+1
18:03:48 [cwebber2]
+0 I'm not informed enough on the issue to really know, but seems fine by me
18:03:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: aaronpk does that make sense to you?
18:03:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: yes
18:03:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
18:03:57 [aaronpk]
+1
18:03:58 [bengo]
+0
18:03:58 [Loqi]
bengo: tantek left you a message 22 minutes ago: can you join us in the telcon 2016-11-01? we need your help resolving some ActivityPub issues interactively so we can get move it along toward PR!
18:04:00 [akuckartz]
+0
18:04:11 [wilkie]
+0
18:04:12 [sandro]
+1 assuming we can do it
18:04:22 [bengo]
Time zone fail, I showed up an hour late
18:04:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: any objections?
18:04:45 [cwebber2]
bengo, basically we wanted feedback on the things you filed in ActivityPub
18:04:58 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: adopt https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ as URL standard reference for Webmention
18:05:04 [cwebber2]
bengo, they are all now Waiting for Commenter :)
18:05:26 [bengo]
cwebber2 ya we can just work via github
18:05:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: we are now at 5 minutes past and we are now at the end of the agenda
18:05:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i do want to come back to AP, since we were waiting for bengo. would it be woth bringing that up now?
18:06:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: bengo said we can work on github as long as he can help get quick turn-around to get these done by next week
18:06:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
bengo: i will do it right now
18:06:33 [tantek]
great!
18:06:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: okay, anything else we need to discuss then?
18:07:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: thanks for coming everyone
18:07:08 [wilkie]
thanks
18:07:09 [eprodrom]
Thanks everyone
18:07:11 [tantek]
ben_thatmustbeme++ for minuting
18:07:11 [Loqi]
ben_thatmustbeme has 177 karma (58 in this channel)
18:07:20 [bengo]
present+
18:07:22 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
18:07:22 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:07:22 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been eprodrom, aaronpk, wilkie, akuckartz, ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro, sandro, cwebber, tantek, bengo
18:07:30 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:07:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/25-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:07:31 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:07:31 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items