IRC log of social on 2016-12-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:03:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
18:03:00 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:03:02 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
18:03:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
18:03:04 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
18:03:04 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
18:03:05 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
18:03:05 [trackbot]
Date: 06 December 2016
18:04:00 [aaronpk]
18:04:03 [rhiaro]
18:04:20 [cwebber2]
18:07:18 [sandro]
18:07:32 [julien]
18:09:00 [annbass]
18:09:17 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
18:09:24 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Last week's minutes
18:10:44 [rhiaro]
Sorry, dropped
18:10:49 [rhiaro]
18:11:23 [cwebber2]
18:12:16 [cwebber2]
18:12:20 [julien]
18:12:29 [sandro]
PROPOSED: approve last week's minutes
18:12:33 [sandro]
18:12:36 [rhiaro]
18:12:39 [annbass]
18:12:39 [aaronpk]
18:12:46 [sandro]
RESOLVED: approve last week's minutes
18:12:46 [julien]
18:12:50 [cwebber2]
18:13:00 [rhiaro]
18:13:08 [cwebber2]
jasnell, are you around?
18:13:13 [sandro]
jasnell, any chance you're around?
18:13:17 [sandro]
18:13:28 [jasnell]
yes and no. I cannot join a call but I can answer questions here
18:13:56 [rhiaro]
tantek: DO we have a CR draft ready for publication
18:14:04 [rhiaro]
sandro: I think Evan's email said he had made all the changes
18:14:07 [rhiaro]
... I have not reviewed them yet
18:14:14 [rhiaro]
tantek: could someone drop a link to the changes?
18:14:21 [rhiaro]
... so we can at least review it
18:14:23 [jasnell]
Evan updated the editor's draft this morning
18:14:29 [sandro]
jasnell, have you seen Evan's recent changes?
18:15:02 [rhiaro]
18:15:05 [sandro]
18:15:05 [Loqi]
[James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0
18:15:07 [Loqi]
[James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0
18:15:07 [jasnell]
I very briefly glanced at it this morning
18:15:36 [rhiaro]
tantek: I can't review, so I'm going to leave it to other folks
18:15:54 [rhiaro]
... The key thing is to make sure the stuff that we discussed at the f2f and subsequent telecons
18:15:59 [rhiaro]
... the whole name, summary, should
18:16:10 [rhiaro]
sandro: Am I right that there's no changes to vocab, just core?
18:16:17 [rhiaro]
... vocab does not have a changelog
18:16:19 [jasnell]
that's how it appears
18:16:22 [sandro] shows nothing since CR
18:16:29 [Loqi]
[James M Snell] Activity Vocabulary
18:16:35 [rhiaro]
tantek: if there are other changes, could you take a look at those
18:17:06 [sandro]
jasnell, are you okay with this being a new Candidate Recommendation? Do you want more time to review it -- like another day or two to yell if there's a problem?
18:17:27 [rhiaro]
"The summary property SHOULD be used as a fallback text representation, possibly automatically generated by the publisher. If there is no name property, the summary property SHOULD NOT include markup, and SHOULD be as short enough to be used as a text representation in the language context. "
18:17:53 [jasnell]
sandro: let's do that, I've had a ton of context switching the past couple of days so I wouldn't feel comfortable signing off without a better readthrough
18:17:55 [rhiaro]
I don't think I understand the last part of that sentence about language context?
18:18:09 [jasnell]
give me until tomorrow and if I don't raise any objections by then go for it
18:19:09 [rhiaro]
sandro: We can publish so long as jasnell doesn't raise objections by tomorrow?
18:19:11 [rhiaro]
tantek: I would be fine with that
18:19:29 [rhiaro]
PROPOSED: Publish new CR of AS2, giving people another 24 hours to review, pending no objections
18:19:42 [jasnell]
18:19:45 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
18:19:46 [sandro]
18:19:47 [annbass]
18:20:21 [cwebber2]
18:20:23 [cwebber2]
sorry :)
18:20:25 [julien]
18:20:38 [sandro]
tantek: +1
18:20:44 [rhiaro]
RESOLVED: Publish new CR of AS2, giving people another 24 hours to review, pending no objections
18:21:14 [rhiaro]
tantek: Next AS2 discussion item is a dependency the Annotation group would like to see resolved
18:21:25 [rhiaro]
... They depend on a bunch of vocabulary terms and want us to go to PR to make sure the terms are stable
18:21:39 [rhiaro]
... and there's a proposal from sandro
18:22:02 [rhiaro]
sandro: They were hoping we would go to PR and we talked a bunch in the staff IRC and realised we don't actually need to go to PR for them to be able to reference us, just that we intend to proceed to PR
18:22:21 [rhiaro]
tantek: you noted that there's only one term we dont' have implementations for
18:22:24 [rhiaro]
... startIndex
18:22:35 [rhiaro]
sandro: They have at least one implementation, and may have two others
18:22:46 [rhiaro]
tantek: If we don't get implementation reports from them for that, we'll drop it, and they should too
18:22:56 [rhiaro]
... I feel we should have this on the record for a resolution
18:22:59 [rhiaro]
... so that it's clear
18:23:07 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We consider the 12 AS2 terms used by WebAnnotations to be stable and will not substantively change their definitions from those in our 06 September 2016 CR. We expect to go to PR in Jan 2017 and see no likely impediments, given our plan to drop any vocabulary terms lacking 2 impls. We currently lack 2 impls of as:startIndex, but assume Anno can provide them.
18:23:26 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We consider the 12 AS2 terms used by WebAnnotations to be stable and will not substantively change their definitions from those in our 06 September 2016 CR. We expect to go to PR in Jan 2017 and see no likely impediments, given our plan to drop any vocabulary terms lacking 2 impls. We currently lack 2 impls of as:startIndex, but assume Anno can provide them.
18:23:27 [julien]
18:23:29 [sandro]
18:23:30 [cwebber2]
18:23:31 [aaronpk]
18:23:32 [rhiaro]
18:23:44 [annbass]
18:24:03 [sandro]
RESOLVED: We consider the 12 AS2 terms used by WebAnnotations to be stable and will not substantively change their definitions from those in our 06 September 2016 CR. We expect to go to PR in Jan 2017 and see no likely impediments, given our plan to drop any vocabulary terms lacking 2 impls. We currently lack 2 impls of as:startIndex, but assume Anno can provide them.
18:24:20 [sandro]
jasnell, are you cool with that?
18:24:35 [sandro]
The terms are: 3 classes (as:Application | as:OrderedCollection | as:OrderedCollectionPage) and 9 properties (as:first | as:generator | as:items | as:last | as:next | as:partOf | as:prev | as:startIndex | as:totalItems)
18:24:42 [jasnell]
18:25:15 [julien]
I think? Can't hear hm anymore :/
18:25:33 [rhiaro]
sandro: While we're waiting for tantek, I think that's it for what's explicitly on the agenda
18:25:37 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Document status
18:25:50 [rhiaro]
sandro: Raise your hand if you have a document status update to report
18:25:56 [aaronpk]
18:26:05 [julien]
he waives
18:26:13 [julien]
raises his hand I believe ;)
18:26:14 [rhiaro]
q- sits
18:26:37 [rhiaro]
various: discussion of aaronpk's problemantic use of emoji
18:27:04 [rhiaro]
sandro: giving tantek another minute..
18:27:20 [rhiaro]
... Did everyone see the list of AS2 implementations?
18:27:24 [rhiaro]
18:27:45 [rhiaro]
... It does make me wonder how many things we're going to have to drop from as2
18:27:59 [rhiaro]
annbass: it's a great way to present that information
18:28:10 [rhiaro]
sandro: Shall we go ahead and proceed without tantek?
18:28:12 [rhiaro]
... aaronpk, go ahead?
18:28:24 [rhiaro]
tantek: *returns*
18:28:43 [julien]
I do no have a status report :/ sorry for the confusion
18:28:53 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: this is for WebSub, from julien as well
18:28:59 [rhiaro]
... We've been working on getting it ready for CR
18:29:04 [aaronpk]
18:29:12 [rhiaro]
... I have the editor's draft up to date with the conformance classes and the last trailing issues that julien's been merging in
18:29:19 [rhiaro]
... I have one pendin gPR to add the exit criteria to it
18:29:19 [aaronpk]
18:29:31 [rhiaro]
... the same stuff that was written in the issue
18:29:47 [rhiaro]
... that should take us to everything we were planning on doing for taking it to CR
18:30:02 [rhiaro]
tantek: does that mean you have a CR draft ready?
18:30:07 [julien]
done and done!
18:30:08 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: once that PR is merged it should be
18:30:12 [julien]
PR merged and CR ready
18:30:14 [rhiaro]
tantek: changelog?
18:30:23 [aaronpk]
18:30:29 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: Oh I didn't update that yet
18:30:47 [rhiaro]
... I believe the list is very small though
18:30:54 [rhiaro]
tantek: any outstanding non-editorial issues open?
18:31:00 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: A couple waiting for commenter
18:31:12 [rhiaro]
... julien, do you know offhand?
18:31:27 [rhiaro]
julien: One waiting for commenter feedback, but I don't think there's anything blocking
18:31:39 [rhiaro]
tantek: if it's still open it's blocking
18:31:56 [rhiaro]
... If we previously resolved on then that should be clear in the issue. If youthink you have a resolution but the commenter hasn't responded yet then walk us through that issue
18:32:10 [rhiaro]
... basically by this discussion we should see if we have zero non-editorial issues that need input from the group
18:32:15 [julien]
18:32:17 [rhiaro]
julien: number 68
18:32:25 [rhiaro]
... The proposal is to replace rel=self with rel=canonical
18:32:36 [rhiaro]
... I don't think there's any benefit to it, but it would break a lot of implementations
18:32:44 [rhiaro]
tantek: do we have a proposal to resovle that issue without changes?
18:33:01 [rhiaro]
... can you propose that both in the issue and IRC
18:33:04 [rhiaro]
sandro: hold on..
18:33:15 [rhiaro]
... it's currently tagged as waiting for commenter, but the commenter has since replied, an dnobody has answered
18:33:25 [rhiaro]
julien: he's asking for the same thing over
18:33:42 [rhiaro]
sandro: he phrased as a 'new suggestion', so to close without answering him.. how do you reply?
18:33:51 [rhiaro]
julien: I think we should not ?? the rel=canonical urls
18:34:00 [rhiaro]
sandro: his point is he wants people to be able to use rel=canonical in their html
18:34:06 [rhiaro]
julien: I don't think there is any good reason for it
18:34:33 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: everything is the same, except in html people should look for rel=canonical and THEN rel=self
18:34:46 [rhiaro]
... since canonical is already existing, people might already have it, and then wouldn't have to add a new one
18:34:57 [rhiaro]
sandro: what does websub use this for? what happens if you don't have either?
18:35:04 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: then you don't know what topic url to send
18:35:10 [rhiaro]
sandro: can't be the URL of the page?
18:35:19 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: theoretically the same but some cases where it's not
18:35:32 [rhiaro]
... the spec makes it explicit that it should always use the advertised the value
18:35:49 [rhiaro]
tantek: one of my requests from a while ago was that if there's no self then just use the URL of the page
18:36:00 [rhiaro]
julien: one of the problems that we've found over and over with feeds is query strings
18:36:15 [rhiaro]
... having urls with query strings, people subscribe to that, but that is not what gets sent to the hub, so the subscriber never gets data
18:36:35 [rhiaro]
sandro: the arguements for requiring rel=self, already implemented, but aside, we want to avoid the error cases where the URL is wrong, and rel=canonical might have the wrong URL as well?
18:36:41 [rhiaro]
julien: it's different things
18:36:50 [rhiaro]
... a need for a way to identify the topic, should not be implicit, it will fail silently
18:36:58 [rhiaro]
... if it's explicit, I don't see the point in having two possible values
18:37:07 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: is there something about rel=canonical that has a different meaning?
18:37:29 [rhiaro]
... the example I could think of is an atom feed sometimes points to a rel=canonical of the html page
18:37:53 [sandro]
ah... so the rel=canonical would be wrong
18:37:54 [rhiaro]
... so if you want to subscribe to the atom feed, you can't use the rel=canonical that would be wrong
18:38:09 [rhiaro]
tantek: the confusion here is from the fact that the term self as an English term si very overloaded
18:38:39 [rhiaro]
... and what it really means is like rel=update. Yes your'e looking at this page, and if you want to get updates of the kind of stuff you see on this page, here's the URL that you subscribe to. That's my understanding of the meaning of rel=self in WebSub
18:38:49 [rhiaro]
... the unfortunate thing is that people see rel=self and think of the english term
18:39:02 [rhiaro]
... it does not mean all the things people think when they see self
18:39:12 [rhiaro]
... and it's unfortunate, but there's so much interop on this I would not propose changing
18:39:12 [sandro]
maybe rel='websubChannel" would be the clearest English :-)
18:39:19 [rhiaro]
... maybe an informative note about what does rel=self mean
18:39:22 [julien]
18:39:34 [rhiaro]
... I do think .. wasn't there an atom rel=self alsothat meant something else?
18:39:41 [rhiaro]
julien: ours is the meaning of atom rel=self that we're using here
18:40:15 [rhiaro]
sandro: it sounds like if we modify the draft to include a note including what we mean by self
18:40:17 [aaronpk]
rel=topic would have been a better choice but that ship has sailed
18:40:37 [rhiaro]
... and tell the commeter we thought about it and are too concerned about the fact that canonical might be different, and we want to keep it a separate relation
18:40:42 [rhiaro]
tantek: mention the experience of ??
18:40:58 [sandro]
s/??/silent failure/
18:41:19 [rhiaro]
julien: silent failure, if you do not subscribe to a URL that's the one the publisher advertises you will not get data and will not understand why
18:41:27 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: most obvious example is query string parameters
18:41:34 [sandro]
+1 silent failure is a bigger issue than convemience of re-using rel=canonical
18:41:44 [rhiaro]
tantek: our irc logs, with /today
18:42:25 [rhiaro]
tantek: can we move this along?
18:42:32 [rhiaro]
julien: I will add a note to the spec about why it is like this
18:42:42 [rhiaro]
... as well as why it's important to have a value and not nothing
18:43:22 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Add note to spec about the naming of rel='self', and do not change to use rel=canonical at all
18:44:42 [rhiaro]
tantek: if you're willing to consider it, julien, the example of IRC logs, really helped convince me when aaronpk told me about that of the value of self
18:47:14 [rhiaro]
<rharo> +1s? ^^^^
18:47:28 [sandro]
18:47:31 [rhiaro]
tantek: vote on proposal
18:47:34 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
18:47:35 [annbass]
18:47:37 [aaronpk]
18:48:02 [julien]
18:48:04 [julien]
18:48:09 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Add note to spec about the naming of rel='self', and do not change to use rel=canonical at all re
18:48:29 [julien]
18:48:37 [rhiaro]
tantek: Next issue?
18:48:45 [rhiaro]
sandro: URL vs URI inconsistency?
18:48:52 [rhiaro]
tantek: I think we had something similar with webmention?
18:49:02 [rhiaro]
... we expect browser like behaviour with discovery
18:49:21 [rhiaro]
... I think I commented on the issue
18:49:31 [julien]
but then what's the resoltuion tantek?
18:50:00 [rhiaro]
sandro: in webmention we reference the URL spec
18:50:27 [rhiaro]
tantek: and that's based on what other specs at w3c are doing, and it better reflects how URLs are treated in html, and that's essentially what we're doing, makes more sense than the IETF rfcs
18:50:39 [julien]
Basically change RFC 3986 to ?
18:51:03 [rhiaro]
sandro: one of the counter arguements would be that it is a political statement
18:51:09 [rhiaro]
tantek: if anything that's an arguement *for*
18:51:25 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> Is this the one that was updated in webmention with a note to go with it?
18:51:38 [rhiaro]
tantek: we should do what web platform wg is doing
18:51:42 [rhiaro]
sandro: you mean what html has been doing?
18:51:55 [rhiaro]
tantek: if there's a question of politics, politial inertia, that's on the side of using the urls pec
18:51:59 [rhiaro]
sandro: could be either way
18:52:09 [rhiaro]
... there will be people who will be upset with either choice
18:52:16 [rhiaro]
... hopefully not terribly
18:52:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:52:35 [rhiaro]
tantek: not clear that it will make any difference. Worse for us to be inconsistent
18:52:36 [rhiaro]
sandro: consistency is better
18:53:00 [rhiaro]
tantek: we should record if people are upset, and if they implement, and move on
18:53:27 [sandro]
PROPOSED: resolve saying we're going to consistently us the
18:53:43 [julien]
18:53:45 [julien]
18:53:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:53:52 [sandro]
+0 not sure about the politics, but I guess, and consistency is important, and we went this way with WebMention
18:53:52 [aaronpk]
18:54:11 [rhiaro]
tantek: unless there are necessary technical reasons for referencing one over another, we should have the TAG say something
18:54:28 [sandro]
RESOLVED: resolve saying we're going to consistently use the
18:54:28 [sandro]
<julien> +!
18:55:02 [annbass]
18:55:05 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> Do we need that note that was added to webmention too though?
18:55:26 [rhiaro]
sandro: I think it's better to ask the commenter to close it
18:55:48 [rhiaro]
tantek: as long as we have a group consensus recorded, for the purposes of going to CR, it's better to leave it open as sandro suggests
18:56:46 [rhiaro]
sandro: somebody needs to go back and tag the 39 closed issues
18:57:01 [rhiaro]
... so we can have an analysis in the CR transition meeting
18:57:14 [rhiaro]
... most of the ones that don't have tags are by the editors, but still
18:57:56 [rhiaro]
... We do have to check over the closed issues and make sure they are legitimately closed
18:58:07 [rhiaro]
tantek: for the open ones, if it doesnt' say editorial then we need a resolution. Any left/
18:58:11 [rhiaro]
sandro: I see three
18:58:31 [rhiaro]
tantek: Unless those are mis-tagged I don't think we're going to resolve 3 issues in 2 minutes
18:58:35 [rhiaro]
sandro: two are raised by aaron
18:58:46 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: 27 is just waiting on me to write up, already resolved
18:58:50 [rhiaro]
... I lost track of 47
18:59:03 [rhiaro]
... I dont' remember why it's important any more
18:59:25 [rhiaro]
... and there's a new one after last eweks' call, I haven't analysed yet, 73
18:59:29 [rhiaro]
... 73 is the only one to talk about now
18:59:34 [rhiaro]
tantek: sounds like we need more time on that one
18:59:56 [rhiaro]
... I think we have enough edits done that you can publish a new WD with a changelog
19:00:06 [rhiaro]
... preferably with the edits we all just agreed on as of this call
19:00:30 [rhiaro]
PROPOSED: Publish a new WD of WebSub including the resolutions from today's call
19:00:35 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
19:00:35 [sandro]
19:00:37 [aaronpk]
19:00:44 [cwebber2]
19:01:04 [rhiaro]
RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of WebSub including the resolutions from today's call
19:01:15 [rhiaro]
sandro: do the editors want to try to do a CR vote next week?
19:01:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
19:01:25 [rhiaro]
julien: yep
19:01:26 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: yep
19:02:57 [sandro]
sandro: should we try to super-rush to get it out before the moratorium
19:03:05 [sandro]
sandro: probably not...
19:03:26 [rhiaro]
tantek: we can publish WDs any time
19:03:28 [sandro]
tantek: yeah, probably not
19:03:57 [rhiaro]
tantek: next week I'm hoping Evan can chair
19:04:25 [rhiaro]
trackbot, end meeting
19:04:25 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:04:25 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, rhiaro, cwebber, sandro, julien, annbass, ben_thatmustbeme, !
19:04:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:04:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
19:04:34 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:04:34 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items