17:02:44 RRSAgent has joined #social 17:02:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/01-social-irc 17:02:46 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:02:46 Zakim has joined #social 17:02:48 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:02:48 ok, trackbot 17:02:49 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:02:49 Date: 01 November 2016 17:03:00 present+ 17:03:03 present+ 17:03:28 regrets+ 17:03:30 Present+ 17:03:32 julien has joined #social 17:04:07 present+ 17:04:45 Zakim, who is here? 17:04:45 Present: aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro 17:04:47 On IRC I see julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, KevinMarks, tantek, annbass, jasnell_, sandro, shepazu, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, wseltzer, strugee, oshepherd, cwebber2, wilkie, raucao, 17:04:47 ... csarven, pdurbin, bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, trackbot 17:04:53 scribenick: rhiaro 17:05:11 present+ 17:05:30 Hiya 17:05:32 Zakim, who is here? 17:05:32 Present: aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro, sandro 17:05:33 On IRC I see julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, KevinMarks, tantek, annbass, jasnell_, sandro, shepazu, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, wseltzer, strugee, oshepherd, cwebber2, wilkie, raucao, 17:05:33 ... csarven, pdurbin, bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, trackbot 17:05:39 present+ 17:05:41 present+ 17:06:01 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-11-01 17:06:12 TOPIC: Upcoming f2f 17:06:25 tantek: 6 people signed up 17:06:27 ... and some remote 17:06:29 ... not too bad 17:06:30 I am trying to call in 17:06:32 ... could use more 17:06:41 oh yeah sorry 17:06:42 ... cwebber2, add yourself if you're coming 17:06:42 I'll be there 17:06:42 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-11-17#Participants 17:06:44 Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting at MIT (F2F8) 17:07:04 Regrets for F2F 17:07:16 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-25-minutes 17:07:17 TOPIC: approval of minutes 2016-10-25 17:07:26 +1 17:07:38 PROPOSED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-25-minutes minutes 17:07:43 +1 17:07:56 +1 17:08:00 +1 17:08:00 +1 17:08:02 present+ 17:08:09 +1 17:08:10 +1 17:08:21 RESOLVED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-25-minutes minutes 17:08:41 TOPIC: CR status for LDN 17:08:57 https://w3.org/TR/ldn 17:09:12 KevinMarks2 has joined #social 17:09:20 rhiaro: Approved and published 17:09:27 tantek: congrats, fastest to publication from FPWD 17:09:33 ... Announcement should go out soon 17:09:39 ... Spread the word 17:09:44 TOPIC: Webmention PR status 17:10:02 Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-11-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100643&oldid=100614 17:10:03 Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/ActivityPub wide review]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100657&oldid=100653 17:10:03 Cwebber2 made 7 edits to [[Socialwg/ActivityPub CR Transition Request]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100656&oldid=100344 17:10:03 Cwebber2 made 6 edits to [[Socialwg/ActivityPub wide review]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100653&oldid=100288 17:10:03 rhiaro: Approved yesterday, published today 17:10:04 Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-11-17]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100658&oldid=100610 17:10:14 tantek: this is our first PR, congrats 17:10:25 wOOt!!! 17:10:27 ... The announcement goes out, to the AC for a vote 17:10:28 😃 17:10:42 ... Composed of w3c members and assuming a sufficient number of them say yes, and no formal objections, it proceeds to rec 17:10:46 ... I forget how many weeks they have to vote 17:10:49 ... I think it's 4 17:10:59 KevinMarks has joined #social 17:11:08 ... In particular I want to encourage everyone who has yet to file an implementation report to please do so 17:11:15 ... And for LDN as well 17:11:23 ... Instructions are in the drafts 17:11:35 ... But for the PR, now it's going to every member of W3C that they need to vote on 17:11:43 ... one of the things they look at is who is implementing it, how many there are 17:11:52 ... These might be people who have never heard of it before 17:12:02 ... So the more implementations we have, the more it looks like ther'es a community, it looks real 17:12:03 https://github.com/w3c/webmention/tree/master/implementation-reports 17:12:34 ... I would recommend that our other CRs look at that and see if they can use the pattern in terms of providing a summary 17:12:41 ... aaronpk, any comments? 17:12:48 aaronpk: I don't think I have anything to add 17:12:55 FWIW -- LDN FPWD -> CR in 98 days (aka 3.2 months aka 14 weeks) 17:13:10 tantek: It appears that there are more implementation reports than there are in the summary, correct? Is it behind? 17:13:20 aaronpk: I think the summary is up to date 17:13:29 ... there are more things in that folder than are in the summary, but they're not all reports 17:13:37 tantek: I was seeing ten implementation reports 17:13:42 aaronpk: yeah there are ten in the summary and in the folder 17:13:52 q? 17:14:04 TOPIC: AS2 CR-> PR status 17:14:06 zakim, who is here? 17:14:06 Present: aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro, sandro, wilkie, cwebber, julien 17:14:07 evan sent regrets 17:14:08 On IRC I see KevinMarks, julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, tantek, annbass, jasnell_, sandro, shepazu, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, wseltzer, strugee, oshepherd, cwebber2, wilkie, raucao, 17:14:08 ... csarven, pdurbin, bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, trackbot 17:14:20 tantek: Any sign of Evan or James? 17:14:20 tantek disappeared 17:14:27 back 17:14:29 ... okay, skip until james shows up 17:14:37 maybe it was on my end then 17:14:41 TOPIC: AP WD->CR 17:14:48 cwebber2: We're ready! 17:14:51 ... So let me link... 17:14:53 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/ActivityPub_CR_Transition_Request 17:14:58 ... This is the transition req document 17:15:00 ? https://activitypub.rocks/implementation-report down 17:15:12 ... The current Ed which we had discussed releasing a new WD of, with a changelog 17:15:13 http://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-from-04-october-2016-to-present 17:15:45 ... I have the links to the implementation report and test suite, but they're not in place. I just registered the domain. They're is not actually anything there, I was told I need to get the stubs in there 17:15:55 sandro: but there will be at least a landing page? 17:15:59 cwebber2: There will be yeah 17:16:08 ... No problem 17:16:16 ... I just got that in place last night 17:16:32 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/ActivityPub_wide_review 17:16:42 ... In terms of wide review, I've collected in addition to issues the offlist feedback Iv'e had 17:16:56 ... That I've requested I can make it public, there are very large amounts of detailed feedback here from people outside the group 17:17:04 ... I think this is in a good state 17:17:16 ... So I'll hadn off to tantek to ask what the next step is and if we can request a vote to move to CR 17:17:22 tantek: Open issues? 17:17:27 https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues 17:17:27 ... I know you've been working really hard on those 17:17:39 cwebber2: The only issues left open are all editorial, except for one which is postponed that we talked about last week 17:17:44 ... one is get AP terms in the AS2 namespace 17:17:48 ... and the test suite one 17:17:52 ... Everything else in there is editorial 17:17:59 sandro: the non-editorial ones are todo list items? 17:18:02 cwebber2: Right 17:18:17 tantek: *sounds of thinking* 17:18:28 ... Having links in the draft should satisfy the test suite and reporting section.. 17:18:38 cwebber2: I'll close the issue then 17:18:51 tantek: I believe that's covered, not an issue against the draft 17:19:09 (rhiaro's scribing makes me smile) 17:19:17 ... The AP terms and AS2 context, I'm not entirely sure what that needs 17:19:24 rhiaro: I took that as a todo, still haven't done it, will do 17:19:27 https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/132 17:19:38 ^^^^^^ 17:19:51 sandro: as extensions to AS2? 17:20:01 Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-11-17]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100659&oldid=100658 17:20:02 cwebber2: rhiaro and I need to work on making sure that happens 17:20:14 rhiaro: I'm on it, just haven't done it yet 17:20:41 tantek: if you want to add that to the CR transition request as something that we'll call out so ralph can see we're taking care of it 17:20:51 I'd hope to have that done before the transition call, but yeah 17:21:28 tantek: if we can get to CR before the f2f that would be great 17:21:46 ... This is awesome, as far as I can tell you've checked off all the itmes 17:21:48 ... Anyone else? 17:21:48 q? 17:22:21 PROPOSED: transition ActivityPub draft at http://w3c.github.io/activitypub/ to CR 17:22:26 +1 17:22:29 +1 :D 17:22:34 +1 17:22:36 +1 17:22:45 +1 17:22:46 +1 17:22:51 I note that csarven added a +1 to this last week on the wiki 17:23:03 Indeed, kudos to cwebber2 17:23:06 tantek: you've had more last minute issues than any other spec we've seen chris, so that's a lot of hard work, well done 17:23:23 csarven: +1 by proxy 17:23:24 RESOLVED: transition ActivityPub draft at http://w3c.github.io/activitypub/ to CR 17:23:31 \o/ 17:23:34 Woohoo! 17:23:46 tantek: rhiaro, setup a transition call, let's make this happen 17:23:53 ... I don't see any issues with the call based on our experience to date 17:24:04 http://hackertribe.io/ 17:24:12 cwebber2: another happy bit of news is we had someone external email me and plan to do an implementation and even put it on the site of the thing they're working on 17:24:19 ... a federated hackernews/reddit alternative 17:24:20 That's neat! 17:24:35 Hehe 17:24:36 ha 17:24:48 TOPIC: PubSub WD->CR status 17:24:53 tantek: julien? 17:25:10 https://github.com/w3c/pubsub/issues 17:25:14 julien: there are a lot of open issues, we've discussed and closed 17:25:20 ... The naming issue is still bothering me. I don't know what to do here. 17:25:23 tantek: let's take that last 17:25:28 ... Any other issues you might want our help with? 17:25:48 julien: Looks like there are 23 open issues. Are there any that you believe you could make faster pgoress on with input from the group? 17:25:52 s/julien/tantek 17:25:56 ohhh shoot 17:26:16 julien: fat pings vs thin pings... I was very confused by the turn of the discussion 17:26:19 ... I thought fat pings were the way to go 17:26:22 https://github.com/w3c/pubsub/issues/35 17:26:23 ... but obviously not everyone thinks that 17:26:28 +q for after PuSH talk to vote on new WD of AP 17:26:28 ... two issues around it 17:26:32 ... also 27 17:26:39 https://github.com/w3c/pubsub/issues/27 17:26:52 q? 17:26:59 ack cwebber 17:26:59 cwebber, you wanted to discuss after PuSH talk to vote on new WD of AP 17:27:34 TOPIC: back to AP briefly 17:27:52 PROPOSAL: publish existing ED as a WD immediately 17:27:58 +1 17:28:09 PROPOSED: http://w3c.github.io/activitypub/ as a new WD of ActivityPub 17:28:12 +1 17:28:26 +1 17:28:27 +1 17:28:32 +1 17:28:42 +1 17:28:51 +1 17:28:58 RESOLVED: publish http://w3c.github.io/activitypub/ as a new WD of ActivityPub 17:29:14 TOPIC: back to PubSubSomething 17:29:27 tantek: back to fat pings and thin pings 17:29:31 ... what's required and what's not 17:29:31 q? 17:29:40 https://github.com/w3c/pubsub/issues/27 17:29:52 aaronpk: This is about issue 27, I created this to try to ask for help finding documentation on current behaviour of fat pings 17:30:02 Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/ActivityPub CR Transition Request]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100660&oldid=100656 17:30:02 ... In my research I was not able to find much about the actual payload that's sent in fat pings 17:30:09 ... We have some links now 17:30:13 Sorry.. was AFK. +1 :) 17:30:14 ... But I'm still not super happy with the state of this 17:30:32 ... The main goal of this thread was if the spec is going to recommend or rquire that fat pings are used it absolutely must say what the payload is 17:30:36 ... Otherwise it's not really useful as a suggestion 17:30:51 ... So I was hoping to collect examples of what people are sending in order to turn that into the recommendation of what the content is 17:31:20 julien: for wordpress and google and superfeedr, we tried to point to the PuSH spec which we thought was giving a good description of the contents of the payload 17:31:24 ... being a diff of what was being subscribed to 17:31:29 ... this needs clarification in the spec now 17:31:43 ... the hub MUST send fat pings, but we cna't prevent the subscriber from ignoring that fat ping 17:31:47 aaronpk: that makes sense 17:31:58 ... the other source of confusion is the spec describes this vague idea of diffingw ithout actually saying it works 17:32:04 julien: that's a problem I've had for a long time 17:32:11 ... diffing has different meanings based on the content type 17:32:23 ... you could diff on the entry level... what does it mean for a json document? 17:32:31 ... I'm not sure what's the right approach here 17:32:37 ... I'd rather diff based on the capabilities of the content type 17:32:42 ... rather than a dumb diff on the text level 17:32:52 ... but if we have to do that to make the spec forward, but I'd rather not 17:33:03 aaronpk: that's why I wanted to collect examples of what is done with rss, atom, html, json, and looking at actual examples 17:33:07 ... but I couldn't find any 17:33:13 ... I totally agree having content type specific idffing is way more useful 17:33:17 ... but I couldn't find what is being done right now 17:33:19 q+ 17:33:46 julien: We talk about diffing, maybe there's room for saying that rather than diffing by default the hub sends the full content of the resource and the client has to find what is new or different in the payload 17:33:52 ... that would basically mean the hub doesn't have to deal with diffing 17:34:01 ... the subscriber has to find a way to identify what's missing, new or updated 17:34:05 q? 17:34:12 aaronpk: I think that's an acceptable solution 17:34:19 diff'ing as an extension 17:34:28 sandro: I'm a big fan of ... there are conflicting things between simplicity and efficiency 17:34:29 ack sandro 17:34:43 ... simplicity would be just send the new content, but in some cases that would be painfully inefficient and we'd wish we could send a diff 17:34:53 ... In terms of technology for diffs, within the general http stack I think that's mostly under patch, right? 17:35:08 ... I dont' know how much the PATCH verb has caught on. I've seen a couple of media types, two different json patch media types 17:35:14 ... that seems like th eright... however people are using PATCH 17:35:26 ... if you're using json-patch to patch json,t hen presumably you should be sending that as your fat ping 17:35:28 ... on a json resource 17:35:45 julien: then the spec would just leave ?? the right diffing mechanism to each content type 17:35:56 ... if you're using json you us ejson-patch, if your'e using rss/atom then you do per entry 17:36:05 good question re: PATCH (how much has it caught on?). IMO from a newish W3C process perspective, PATCH has been insufficiently incubated (not enough actual prototyping to show that it's worth depending on). 17:36:08 sandro: the problem with that is that there isn't one... there are at least 2 different json-patch protocols 17:36:16 julien: it's worse for images, how do you diff an image? 17:36:47 sandro: I think if you don't have a good diff mechanism... you could do it, complicates the protocol maybe, when you're sending a patch the way you're supposed to know what media type ot use is you get an accept-patch header earlier in the process 17:37:07 ... if we can fit that in the hub could, if it gets an accept patch, and it knows how to do that media type,then it MAY or SHOULD send patches using that 17:37:09 q+ to note need to separate what we *could* do with PubSub, vs. what documenting (specing) what we believe implementations *already do* 17:37:12 ... if it doesn't know that, it sends the whole content 17:37:17 julien: that's exactly how superfeedr works 17:37:25 ... at the hub level we look at the accept header upon subscription 17:37:36 ... if they accept json we do the conversion form rss to json 17:37:43 ... and when the content updates we send the json rather than rss 17:37:55 ... this could work for me, saying what the subscriber provides defines what the hub sends in the notification 17:38:05 ... and we need a way for the hub to tell the subscriber that it doesn't understand the accep theader 17:38:15 https://tools.ietf.org/html//rfc5789 ACCEPT-PATCH 17:38:21 sandro: There is this accept patch header in rfc 17:38:37 ... we have to see what the logic there is, along with the logic pubsub uses, and see if they can fit together 17:39:03 tantek: sounds like you and aaron were coming to some common understanding? 17:39:22 julien: I'll start working on the summary and then aaron we can iterate from there 17:39:27 tantek: sounds good 17:39:29 ack tantek 17:39:29 tantek, you wanted to note need to separate what we *could* do with PubSub, vs. what documenting (specing) what we believe implementations *already do* 17:40:08 ... I think it's good to consider how pubsub could do this in ideal conditions, maybe in the future. However for the purposes of what we need to scope and ship in this WG we need to limit ourselves to what we believe implementations already do and use that as a very strong constraint 17:40:39 ... If there is a potentially better solution with diffing or patch or something which we don't know or we don't know of any implementations, that may be worth opening as a separate issue, as like an enhancement request, but not necessarily for this version of pubsub 17:40:49 ... which I believe pretty strongly we need to constrain to what we have implementations doing today 17:41:02 ... so we can get it through the w3c process 17:41:09 sandro: I agree that makes sense 17:41:28 ... it may be that diffs and patch are all a straightforward obvious extesnion and the part we standardise here is always about sending the whole content 17:41:32 ... I'm prefectly comfortable with that 17:41:41 ... and efficeincy being an extension 17:41:56 tantek: we're not trying to shut down discussion, its' good for us to keep an open mind 17:41:58 ... and yes, document it 17:42:18 ... if it ends up that solidifies into an extension that we can tell people to start playing with, that's great, but it's a different scope and timeline than the pubsub spec itself 17:42:32 ... we might even manage to publish an extension as a note, but I don't think I'd want that to delay the spec itself 17:42:36 ... just my opinion 17:42:39 q? 17:42:42 ... not a chair statement 17:43:17 ... Sounds like we have a good understanding of issues 27 and 35 17:43:37 ... sandro, could you open that as an enhancement request issue 17:44:02 ... julien if you could separate the optimal way form what implementations to today 17:44:06 julien: will do 17:44:11 tantek: what next? 17:44:33 julien: most of the other ones are either fixes that are obvious or clear decisions, eg. the algorithms in the signature 17:44:49 ... I don't think there are other significant ones, but maybe someone will disagree... one oabout the verbs but I don't thin it's worth changing what we've done so far 17:44:52 ... 28 17:44:57 https://github.com/w3c/pubsub/issues/28 17:45:04 ... The current spec was not 'rest' enough 17:45:17 ... we were using GET and POST in ways that did not necessarily abide by the rest philosophy 17:45:54 q? 17:46:02 ... I think the current spec is fine 17:46:11 ... makes a reasonable distinction 17:46:34 aaronpk: I agree no change is needed for that. Seems to be a slightly unusual use of a GET but not the end of the world, and it's what everyone does already 17:47:18 tantek: is there a security issue with potential misuse of get? 17:47:51 julien: one person also suggested that we use a signature mechanism for setting up subscription 17:47:58 ... and I think that would solve security misuse of GET in that context 17:48:24 tantek: do you have a proposed resolution? 17:48:33 ... I'm not hearing a lot of dispute 17:48:47 julien: what I"ll do is put a longer comment in the issue thread and maybe not close it right away, and ask for feedback 17:48:56 tantek: okay, we'll leave it open for now 17:49:13 ... if it comes ot a point wher eyou're not making any progress but you feel like you have some consensus, then bring it back to the WG so we can close it and move forward 17:49:41 sandro: This is one of these cases where this comes up with a potentially breaking change. We're all tryign to do this without any breaking changes so that all existing implementatios remain conformant. If we have to do a breaking change we'll think long and hard about it. right? 17:49:55 julien: Definitely to try to maintain everything or at least provide only little change. This would be very significant 17:50:17 tantek: I tend to agree. I personally would need to see for a breaking change, a security flaw that would motivate the current implementations to update 17:50:21 ... Anything short of that I'm not sure I would support 17:50:37 sandro: I'd be hesitant to do anything that would fork the community into people who are still using pre-w3c PuSH 17:50:46 ... I want them to be on board without doing anything 17:51:18 tantek: maybe that's something we can resolve 17:51:23 sandro: I don't think we need to make a formal policy 17:51:26 tantek: okay 17:51:41 julien: and then... the naming. 17:51:56 aaronpk, you have twitter poll results in? 17:52:02 https://github.com/w3c/pubsub/issues/10 17:52:06 current twitter poll results: https://aaronparecki.com/uploads/Screen-Shot-2016-11-01-10-52-25.png 17:52:27 PushCast is in the lead 17:52:32 I LOVE that hubbub got loads of vote 17:52:34 that was a joke 17:52:42 tantek: I don't really want to use twitter poll sfor this type of thing... 17:52:49 aaronpk: an interesting survey of people who are not us, not a deciding factor 17:53:10 sandro: one of the problems I have with pubsubhubbub as a name is the abbreviate of PuSH. This is not 'push' as a web developer understands it 17:53:21 ... specifically server to client, which is not the webhook kind of thing that this is 17:53:31 aaronpk: that's true, and also server to phone, apple and google's push apis 17:53:41 sandro: push is all the way to the end user, not an internal node to node like pubsubhubbub is 17:53:52 Seems like a good point, from a 'novice' Point of view 17:53:53 tantek: I guess I always thought of what you're calling push as server push... I can see your poing 17:53:56 s/poing/point 17:54:02 julien: this is just one of the problems with the naming 17:54:08 (That would be me... the novice) 17:54:12 ... pubsub also has a lot of other meanings 17:54:23 ... all of the names have been used before for something else 17:54:26 websub ? 17:54:30 ... hard to find somehting both new and descriptvie 17:54:31 q? 17:54:54 tantek: let me try to roll this back. We had a strong consensus to go with pubsub last time we discussed this, f2f in Lisbon 17:55:04 q+ 17:55:05 q+ 17:55:08 ... to change that we're going to need new information that we did not come up with in the discussion 17:55:16 ... We knew pubsub was generic backthen, we decided to go with it anyway 17:55:21 aw phone disconnected :( 17:55:32 ok, what I was going to say, I think we agreed on pubsub for the short name 17:55:33 ... we knew that it was superior to pubsubhubbub in terms of pronunctiation, especially for non-native English speakers 17:55:41 for ids at least 17:55:41 totally, cwebber2 17:55:50 tantek: any actually new information? 17:56:05 sandro: I hadn't thought about the search problem when we had that discussion 17:56:07 personally I don't care if we leave it as pubsubhubbub... at least people know what that is 17:56:16 ... like in regsitries, not just search engines, don't have smart search 17:56:28 julien: definitely, the name is taken everywehre 17:56:41 tantek: the web search arguement I'm not as worried about 17:56:48 ... pubsubhubbub has a lot of history and uptake in the past so it's easier to find 17:57:06 ... web search is a lagging indicator of uptake 17:57:09 q+ 17:57:11 sandro: the name pubsub is never going to be unambiguous 17:57:18 q- 17:57:19 ... in a respository or software directory 17:57:26 ... eg. redis has a pubsub, their modules show up as well 17:57:44 tantek: so if it's already a problem why should we ..? 17:57:51 sandro: It's nice for us to steer clear 17:57:57 I have 17:58:04 I didn't think of the search/generic thing 17:58:06 I don't have strong opinions but 17:58:11 tantek: anyone else changed their mind since f2f? 17:58:11 I think pubsubhubbub is a fine choice 17:58:13 aaronpk: I have 17:58:17 it has problems, but we have nothing better 17:58:29 and at least it has well known history 17:58:35 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-23-minutes#Pubsubhubbub 17:58:37 we can keep pubsub as w3c shortid 17:58:46 "Use shortname of pubsub for shortname for now" 17:58:52 aaronpk: In our meeting minutes we did specifically resolve to use pubsub as the short name for now 17:59:03 sandro: it's not like we talked about it a whole lot at the f2f 17:59:12 I'm also ok with pushcast 17:59:12 I definitely don't think we agreed to use it as main name, only shortname 17:59:21 my memory is only shortname too 17:59:22 tantek: My recollection was that we resolved on both 17:59:24 q+ different 17:59:25 Can we use pubsub, but w acronym different than 'PuSh' 17:59:34 q? 17:59:42 q- different 17:59:45 q+ rhiaro 17:59:46 sandro: one middleground is the same way pubsubhubbu is abbreviated PuSH we could keep using pubsub as a convenient reference to pubsubhubbub 17:59:51 q- 18:00:03 ... but the full name is pubsubhubbub 18:00:09 ... but we refer to it as pubsub for convienience 18:00:11