18:03:11 RRSAgent has joined #social 18:03:11 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/08-social-irc 18:03:13 RRSAgent, make logs public 18:03:13 Zakim has joined #social 18:03:15 Zakim, this will be SOCL 18:03:15 ok, trackbot 18:03:16 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 18:03:16 Date: 08 November 2016 18:03:23 present+ 18:03:25 Can someone scribe? 18:03:27 present+ 18:03:27 rhiaro: tantek left you a message 6 days, 18 hours ago: do you know how we (chairs / staff) can make blog posts here: https://www.w3.org/blog/ (as other WG chairs (including non-W3C-team people) seem to be able to) ? 18:03:32 present+ 18:03:35 present+ 18:03:37 present+ 18:03:47 present+ 18:03:47 sandro: tantek left you a message 6 days, 18 hours ago: do you know how we (chairs / staff) can make blog posts here: https://www.w3.org/blog/ (as other WG chairs (including non-W3C-team people) seem to be able to) ? 18:03:48 hey rhiaro 18:04:09 Zakim, pick a victim 18:04:09 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose aaronpk 18:04:11 Scribe? 18:04:13 scribe: sandro 18:04:34 RRSAgent, pointer? 18:04:34 See http://www.w3.org/2016/11/08-social-irc#T18-04-34 18:04:54 Zakim, who's here? 18:04:54 Present: annbass, rhiaro, aaronpk, tsyesika, eprodrom, sandro 18:04:56 On IRC I see RRSAgent, eprodrom, tsyesika, annbass, jasnell, strugee, KjetilK_, sandro, ben_thatmustbeme, wseltzer, oshepherd, cwebber2, wilkie, raucao, csarven, pdurbin, 18:04:56 ... bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, trackbot 18:05:04 chair: Evan 18:05:38 PROPOSED: accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-11-01-minutes as minutes for Nov 1 2016 telecon 18:05:44 +1 18:05:53 +1 18:06:03 +1 18:06:05 +1 18:06:10 +1 18:06:40 RESOLVED: accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-11-01-minutes as minutes for Nov 1 2016 telecon 18:07:01 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-11-17 18:07:07 Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting at MIT (F2F8) 18:07:14 evan: Reminder: Face-to-Face meeting next week, in the Boston area 18:07:38 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-11-17 18:07:39 Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting at MIT (F2F8) 18:07:54 eprodrom: Media wiki tables are a challenge, but we can do it! 18:07:56 q+ 18:08:02 ack rhiaro 18:08:07 very bummed I cannot be there 18:08:14 rhiaro: telecon tuesday or cancel it? 18:08:35 eprodrom: I'll be in transit 18:09:02 eprodrom: Anyone who thinks we should have a telecon Tuesday? 18:09:15 PROPOSED: cancel Tuesday Nov 15 2016 telecon 18:09:18 +1 18:09:19 +1 18:09:22 +0 18:09:25 +0 18:09:26 +1 18:09:40 present+ 18:09:56 +1 18:10:01 RESOLVED: cancel Tuesday Nov 15 2016 telecon 18:10:39 eprodrom: dinner? 18:10:48 I will lead everyone to Veggie Galaxy unless overridden by someone else 18:10:52 rhiaro++ 18:10:52 .. it'd be good, but let's figure it out later 18:10:52 rhiaro has 136 karma in this channel (247 overall) 18:10:59 regrets+ julien 18:11:06 VeggieGalaxy++ 18:11:06 veggiegalaxy has 1 karma 18:11:37 topic: AS2 issue-312 18:12:17 eprodrom: Must every AS2 object have a name? Complicated 18:12:27 hiya 18:12:28 .. I think re resolved to have a fallback name property 18:12:29 dialing in 18:12:38 w/ re / we / 18:13:00 eprodrom: right now we have a SHOULD requirement for .name of every Activty, Collection, Image, Person, etc 18:13:07 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/312 18:13:25 .. question was raised -- for some objects, like a Collection, the name fields forced 18:13:29 present+ 18:13:40 .. Sometimes it doesn't seem like there should be a name 18:13:44 .. a Page of a Collection 18:14:24 .. the counter argument: there will be many consumers that will want to present activities that they might not understand, or be able to render in any specific way, so it'd be nice to have something like name to fallback on 18:14:34 .. esp with extension types, or obscure types 18:15:20 tantek has joined #social 18:15:30 .. Problem with doing that: some consumers may want to have customized presentation, and they wouldn't be able to tell which names were really specific to that object (eg my name) vs a generated name like (eg Unnamed Person) 18:16:03 .. so the resolution is to have a fallback name required, and an option name would be allowed. 18:16:17 .. fbname might be "a person", name "evan prodromou" 18:16:18 present+ 18:16:26 .. Why is this on the agenda? 18:16:28 q+ 18:16:57 rhiaro: I put it on the agenda, because I didn't think we'd decided what the names were going to be. 18:17:09 .. If we're making a normative change, we need to extend CR 18:17:15 .. and I'm implementing and need to know what to do 18:17:17 KevinMarks has joined #social 18:17:30 would we need a fallbackNameMap? 18:17:31 eprodrom: Yeah, I don't think we'd picked the final properties 18:18:24 rhiaro: biggest thing is if we're going to make a normative change -- which seems unavoidable -- if we make .name the required property, or if a we add another required property that's also normative ... 18:18:25 q+ to note that IIRC at the f2f we decided to drop the SHOULD for name, which should not affect any conformant implementations. the fallbackname did not have consensus 18:19:00 eprodrom: If we use name as the mostly-required (SHOULD) and add an optional "title" 18:19:13 .. that minimizes the normative impact 18:19:30 rhiaro: It'd need to be MUST to be a reliable fallback 18:19:31 :| 18:19:33 no MUST 18:19:49 BTW such a "fallbackname" is kind of a brand new feature and having never been incubated is not really appropriate to add during CR 18:19:59 tantek: it's not a new feature 18:20:00 eprodrom: I see that point, but we've had it as a should for so long, and it's serving that same role 18:20:10 tantek, this used to be two separate fields 18:20:16 tantek, and then they were combined 18:20:16 rhiaro: Okay, so we're relying on developers taking the SHOULD very seriously 18:20:23 tantek, and now we've realized that's a mistake 18:20:25 eprodrom: Well, that's how it's been used 18:20:32 cwebber2, ok, in that case ok with "at risk" 18:20:33 tantek, granted, "fallbackName" is a new *term* 18:20:43 since it used to be displayName iirc 18:20:52 q+ 18:20:57 q- 18:21:02 eprodrom: Making it a MUST would be hardening that requirement, which seems unneeded 18:21:03 ack tantek 18:21:03 tantek, you wanted to note that IIRC at the f2f we decided to drop the SHOULD for name, which should not affect any conformant implementations. the fallbackname did not have 18:21:04 q? 18:21:06 ... consensus 18:21:32 tantek: What I recall from F2F, with one objection, was the drop the SHOULD from .name 18:21:55 .. having a fallback name, people were open to that, editor was supposed to provide proposal 18:22:30 .. regarding fallback name, Chris and I spoke, and I'd be okay adding something at-risk 18:23:00 cwebber2: So, I'm looking at the notes 18:23:02 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-23-minutes#AS2 18:23:03 That way of thinking about it makes it sound almost like it's a non-normative change, that's what I was looking for :) 18:23:06 RESOLUTION: Return distinction between "user entered or otherwise significant name" and "text fallback" and shift SHOULD from meaningful name to text fallback. 18:23:08 yay citationd 18:23:13 s/citationd/citations 18:23:14 :D 18:23:51 .. I think that was a good resolution 18:24:09 so what to call them? 18:24:17 s/so/.. so/ 18:24:36 ugh, the whole reason we renamed to "name" was because others using "meaningful name" were using that 18:24:38 cwebber2: main motive is avoid a new CR --- so make name be the fallback 18:24:44 I agree with everything cwebber2 is saying 18:24:54 cwebber2: But I like the name as the meaningful name 18:25:33 sandro: if it's an extension, then it doesn't need a new CR 18:25:38 cwebber2: I think this is core 18:25:52 It's only like 4 weeks, right 18:25:53 tantek: I'd like another CR to do this 18:25:55 It's not so bad :p 18:26:43 AS2 is for life, not just for the charter period. 18:26:44 eprodrom: Yeah. My feeling here is ... the spec is forever, so let's try to do the right thing for the long term. 18:26:52 +1 on 'doing right thing'! 18:27:07 .. let's not have our short-term scheduling issue be the problem. 18:27:21 q+ to note that I did propose a way to potentially avoid a second CR at the f2f 18:27:36 eprodrom: so let's have .name be the meaningful name, and something else .depiction? as the fallback 18:27:51 cwebber2: how about .displayName ? 18:27:58 .. or .fallbackName 18:27:59 I can live with fallbackname 18:28:05 +1 fallbackName 18:28:16 however I have a counterproposal for avoiding a 2nd CR (I think) 18:28:18 eprodrom: I like fallbackName 18:28:30 .. sounds a bit like tempInteger but I see the point 18:28:51 (that I made at the f2f) 18:28:51 q? 18:28:52 q? 18:28:55 ack cwebber2 18:28:58 q+ to ask about SHOULD / MUST of fallbackName 18:28:59 ack cwebber 18:29:09 ack tantek 18:29:09 tantek, you wanted to note that I did propose a way to potentially avoid a second CR at the f2f 18:29:29 q+ to ask if you need fallbackName when there's a name 18:29:44 tantek: another idea, without CR 18:29:49 .. drop SHOULD from name 18:29:50 sandro, i was going to cover that too 18:30:00 .. say consumers that need some kind of fallback name 18:30:11 .. should use the .summary property 18:30:29 .. and say publishers, if you don't provide a name, you SHOULD provide a plaintext .summary 18:30:43 .. In my experience, the situations where you don't provide a name 18:31:02 .. and consumers still want a something, my exoperience and indiewebcamp experience, is summary works well for that 18:31:28 .. eg a LIKE doesn't have a meaningful name, but it does have a summary which can be used in contexts that don't understand Like 18:31:31 .. that works well 18:31:51 .. it works in clients that don't understand this kind of reaction, but understand reactions in general 18:31:58 +1 with use as "summary" for fallback text since that seems to work, and does not require adding a new term (thus does not require a new CR) 18:32:20 .. I'm advocating for this, that this doesn't need a new CR 18:32:30 .. would this break any existing implementations? 18:32:32 q+ 18:32:52 .. I'm trying to find a way to keep the funcationlity people want, in a way that folks have seen working 18:33:10 eprodrom: sounds like a solid proposal, I like it 18:33:21 .. only objection I might have is 18:33:49 q+ to say it would be fine, but explain I think it'll still result in a new CR though 18:33:57 q+ to ask if we'd have to kick html out of summary for this to work? 18:34:00 .. the name/title slot typically has max six words, but in some cases, the summary might be several sentences long. An Abstract or TL;DR type thing. 18:34:13 .. that's my only concern here 18:34:39 tantek: I agree that's a real case 18:34:53 I can hear tantek and eprodrom just fine 18:34:54 Did I just fall off the call, or did tantek? 18:34:57 I think it was me 18:35:19 I'm going to call back in either way, since I can't hear. 18:35:29 .. but in all the cases where there's a longer article, there's a name provided in practice. 18:35:34 .. I think 18:35:42 tantek: would you mind chairing for 5 minutes while I reconnect? 18:35:47 .. When summary is longer, there tends to be a meaningful name 18:35:58 .. Also, it's possible for people to provide really long names anyway 18:36:07 If summary is long, the consumer knows they're allowed to truncate it, since it's sthe fallback 18:36:16 .. Maybe provide guidances, saying .name and .summary MIGHT be long 18:36:27 q- 18:36:51 q? 18:36:54 chair: tantek 18:36:57 ack ben_thatmustbeme 18:36:57 ben_thatmustbeme, you wanted to ask about SHOULD / MUST of fallbackName 18:37:17 ben_thatmustbeme: in either case, whether we use fallbackName or .summary, is it a MUST or a SHOULD? 18:37:28 -1 on MUST 18:37:57 tantek: Yes, if there's no name provided, summary becomes a SHOULD. SHOULD is strong enough, doesn't need to be MUST, because we might get empty summary values. 18:37:58 it's just fallback text, if someone doesn't have it, it's hot a *huge* deal 18:38:02 back 18:38:18 .. this keeps a smaller change. 18:38:34 name -> summary -> "an object" 18:38:37 ben_thatmustbeme: If .name isn't present, the publisher SHOULD provide a .summary 18:38:49 tantek:Right, but we should also give guidance in case both are missing. 18:38:57 .. that's a possible thing in the real world. 18:39:29 sandro: The test suite should have an entry missing both\ 18:39:33 eprod I would be ok with that 18:39:34 eprodrom: it does now 18:39:40 q? 18:39:49 eprodrom, I would be ok with something like that up to the consumer (localization etc.) 18:39:50 ack cwebber 18:39:50 cwebber, you wanted to say it would be fine, but explain I think it'll still result in a new CR though 18:39:52 chair: eprodrom 18:40:14 cwebber2: I'm fine with .summary, and I'm against MUST, as we discussed in F2F 18:40:17 +1 cwebber2 18:40:26 .. I want to raise a Devil's Advocate argument 18:40:48 .. if we move the SHOULD, that still might need a new CR 18:41:05 .. if BigBlueHat were here, he'd argue that SHOULD's aren't normative 18:41:43 tantek: It's not that SHOULD's arent normative, it's about new features, and breaking implementations. 18:42:04 .. so if implementations do something different, then you'd need a normative change in response 18:42:05 It means that most of my activities don't have summary.. 18:42:06 .. case by case 18:42:24 rhiaro -- or a name? 18:42:32 sandro: aye 18:42:37 q? 18:42:49 tantek: If we think this is compatible with implemnentations, it should be okay 18:42:57 cwebber2: Let's check with James 18:42:58 ..maybe it's fine 18:43:03 q? 18:43:20 eprodrom: No, we don't need to wait for James. He's aware of our schedule. 18:43:34 jasnell can raise an issue based on this conclusion if he wants and we can consider that if/when that happens 18:43:39 +1 eprodrom 18:43:48 eprodrom: This is in the spirit of what we agreed at the F2F 18:44:08 q? 18:44:12 +1 sounds good 18:44:16 ack rhiaro 18:44:16 rhiaro, you wanted to ask if we'd have to kick html out of summary for this to work? 18:44:27 !! 18:44:37 rhiaro: This all sounds good. I'm fine using .summary this way. Great to have it not considered a normative change. 18:44:41 .. what about Markup, though 18:44:59 sandro: name does not have markup, but summary does ? 18:45:13 eprodrom: leave it as is 18:45:19 sandro: advice to implementors? 18:45:27 PROPOSED: name -> MAY, summary -> SHOULD, add section on string representation of object 18:45:39 not sure if that made it through 18:45:40 summary is a SHOULD *only* in the absence of name 18:45:52 don't want a general SHOULD on summary 18:45:54 PROPOSED: name -> MAY, summary -> SHOULD if no name, add section on string representation of object 18:46:02 Also there was that thing about keeping it required for Article ..? 18:46:15 and informative consumer guidance on what to do with too long of a name/summary or if both are empty 18:46:22 sandro: yes, but that doesn't address markup 18:46:45 summary -> SHOULD be there and be plain text if no name 18:46:53 sandro: would be say something like: when you're using summary as a backup name, it's okay to strip out the markup. 18:47:03 eprodrom: Yes, non-normative advice. 18:47:10 yes 18:47:25 sandro: I'm concerned stripping markup might change semantics 18:47:50 eprodrom: okay to leave the markup, too 18:47:53 q? 18:47:56 q+ 18:48:03 q+ to say I feel like cases where it might change the semantics are probably 'name' cases 18:48:05 q? 18:48:05 q- 18:48:16 oops disconnected, reconnecting 18:48:28 oof 18:48:30 eprodrom: I'd note that summary has markup 18:48:34 welllll 18:48:42 sandro no 18:48:44 sandro: I think we said name needs to work without markup, so fallback name does too 18:48:54 q- 18:48:58 implementations of Atom etc. already drop markup from 'name' or 'summary' when displaying 18:49:02 that doesn't mean that summary renders in the same way as name... 18:49:07 so no this is not an issue in practice 18:49:14 taking markup out of summary seems bad 18:49:39 I think it's fine saying if publisher is using summary as a fallback, SHOULD NOT have markup 18:49:39 sandro: Tantek, you're saying it's well know, even if not in spec, that markup might be stripped from sumary 18:49:55 -1 on taking markup out of summary, +0 on permitting stripping markup from summary (though depending on markup, that might not always be easy) 18:49:57 tantek --- no sound 18:50:01 implementations already do it (consuming code removes markup from name / summary in Atom) 18:50:11 sandro I am still disconnected, attempting dialing 18:50:11 the biggest dependency I've had in implementations is libxml which is a troublesome dependency to support on many machines. I only need it to strip HTML out, which I do 100% of the time. 18:50:21 right 18:50:46 eprodrom: consumer can do anything, so no point in saying they can strip markup 18:51:03 .. maybe advice against markup in summary when used as fallback 18:51:17 That sounds good to me 18:51:20 -1 eprodrom consumers can do whatever they want 18:51:21 I want waffles 18:52:23 PROPOSED: name -> MAY, plaintext summary -> SHOULD if no name, add section on string representation of object 18:52:55 tantek: Also informative guidance on both being too big or empty 18:52:58 HTML in fields are good if I can just ignore them completely if I'm likely going to strip the HTML and can't rely on preserving the intended representation 18:53:03 PROPOSED: name -> MAY, summary -> SHOULD if no name, add section on string representation of object including informative guidance on name or summary being very long 18:53:03 .. because we have thoguht about 18:53:32 PROPOSED: change name to may, if no name, SHOULD provide a plaintext summary, add a sectino on string representation, add guidance to the fact that summary or name may be too long 18:53:36 hows that 18:53:37 ? 18:53:47 GAH 18:53:53 haha I type "functino" all the time 18:54:00 aaronpk: lol 18:54:00 PROPOSED: change name to may, if no name, SHOULD provide a plaintext summary, add a section on string representation, add guidance to the fact that summary or name may be too long 18:54:17 +1 18:54:20 +1 18:54:30 +1 18:54:30 (okay with "very long) 18:54:35 +1 18:54:36 +1 18:54:37 +1 18:54:41 very long is fine too 18:54:41 +1 18:54:49 didn't tantek want "or both may be empty" 18:54:53 +1 ok with s/too/very, and ok adding guidance on if both name & summary are empty 18:54:53 +1 18:54:57 This is just the text of the proposal, not what will go in the spec, it's okay ;P 18:55:13 RESOLVED: change name to may, if no name, SHOULD provide a plaintext summary, add a section on string representation, add guidance to the fact that summary or name may be too long 18:55:39 +1 18:56:16 topic: AS2 Validator 18:56:24 eprodrom: plan to have new version for F2F 18:56:28 .. patches welcome 18:56:42 Thanks! 18:56:59 KevinMarks2 has joined #social 18:57:00 topic: pubsub.rocks 18:57:33 aaronpk: pubsub.rocks now has test tool for publishers and subscribers 18:58:00 aaronpk++ 18:58:00 aaronpk has 67 karma in this channel (1137 overall) 18:58:11 aaronpk: next step is if you're building a hub 18:58:21 .. that'll build implementation report 18:58:27 q? 18:58:41 just to note, there are a bunch of new implementation reports for webmention https://webmention.net/implementation-reports/summary/ 18:58:48 pubsubrocks++ ! 18:58:48 pubsubrocks has 1 karma 18:59:22 aaronpk++ 18:59:22 aaronpk has 68 karma in this channel (1138 overall) 18:59:26 aaronpk: likely hub test tool will be done next week, but maybe not submitting results 18:59:45 eprodrom, Any other business? 18:59:50 just to note, there are a bunch of new implementation reports for webmention https://webmention.net/implementation-reports/summary/ 19:00:06 q+ to note pubsub name change on wiki 19:00:14 ack rhiaro 19:00:14 rhiaro, you wanted to note pubsub name change on wiki 19:00:24 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/push-name 19:00:25 any leaders? 19:01:06 going to be a close call, vote for your pubsub bikeshedding today!!! 19:01:12 thanks Sandro and Evan! 19:01:12 o/ 19:01:15 trackbot, stop meeting 19:01:15 Sorry, eprodrom, I don't understand 'trackbot, stop meeting'. Please refer to for help. 19:01:54 eprodrom: Thanks everyone, see everyone at F2F Thursday 19:02:02 trackbot, end meeting 19:02:02 Zakim, list attendees 19:02:02 As of this point the attendees have been annbass, rhiaro, aaronpk, tsyesika, eprodrom, sandro, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tantek 19:02:10 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 19:02:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/08-social-minutes.html trackbot 19:02:11 RRSAgent, bye 19:02:11 I see no action items