IRC log of social on 2017-07-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:01:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:01:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:01:52 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:01:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:01:54 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:01:54 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
17:01:55 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:01:55 [trackbot]
Date: 25 July 2017
17:02:06 [sandro]
17:02:11 [tantek]
17:02:44 [xmpp-social]
[ajordan] h2b: I should clarify, I'm the admin of this _room_, not the entire XMPP server
17:02:53 [aaronpk]
17:03:01 [xmpp-social]
[ajordan] I would poke around for some contact into
17:03:11 [jaywink]
17:03:30 [xmpp-social]
[ajordan] Telecon people: dialing in; I'll be present+ in a sec
17:03:56 [ajordan]
17:04:14 [rhiaro]
17:04:15 [cwebber2]
17:04:58 [jaywink]
cwebber2: heh thanks. was in the last meeting too ;) I think
17:05:35 [tantek]
zakim, who is here?
17:05:35 [Zakim]
Present: sandro, tantek, aaronpk, jaywink, ajordan, rhiaro, cwebber
17:05:37 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, tantek, jankusanagi_, Gargron, xmpp-social, cwebber2, Loqi, ajordan, ben_thatmustbeme, dlongley, KjetilK_, MMN-o, jaywink, bwn, aaronpk, raucao, dwhly,
17:05:37 [Zakim]
... astronouth7303, saranix, albino, csarven, michcioperz, wilkie, trackbot, rhiaro, sandro, nightpool, DenSchub, puckipedia, tsyesika, jet, tcit, bitbear, mattl, sknebel,
17:05:37 [Zakim]
... bigbluehat
17:05:51 [tantek]
chair: Tantek
17:07:10 [cwebber2]
scribenick: cwebber2
17:07:28 [cwebber2]
topic: Approve last two weeks' minutes
17:07:46 [cwebber2]
17:07:49 [cwebber2]
17:08:16 [cwebber2]
<cwebber2> +1
17:08:19 [cwebber2]
17:08:30 [rhiaro]
17:08:39 [tantek]
PROPOSED: Approve 2017-07-18 and 2017-06-27 minutes
17:08:44 [cwebber2]
<cwebber2> +1
17:08:45 [aaronpk]
17:09:09 [sandro]
17:09:27 [ajordan]
17:09:39 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: Approve 2017-07-18 and 2017-06-27 minutes
17:10:03 [Loqi]
Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-07-25]]
17:11:36 [tantek]
17:12:07 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: we don't have enough time it seems to be able to cancel, so I'd prefer to either reinstate meetings or switch to 90 minutes meetings
17:12:27 [cwebber2]
tantek: probably easier to do 90 min meetings, sandro said they may think that's what happens during times like this in other groups?
17:12:29 [cwebber2]
sandro: yes
17:13:06 [tantek]
PROPOSED: August telcons (as already scheduled per previous resolutions) extend to 90 minutes each
17:13:11 [cwebber2]
cwebber: +1
17:13:22 [sandro]
17:13:30 [ajordan]
17:13:45 [aaronpk]
17:13:50 [rhiaro]
17:14:12 [jaywink]
17:14:18 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: August telcons (as already scheduled per previous resolutions) extend to 90 minutes each
17:15:02 [tantek]
chair: sandro
17:15:12 [cwebber2]
topic: Post Type Discovery
17:15:28 [cwebber2]
tantek: feel like I'm making good progress on PTD, and there's feedback and a new implementation
17:15:29 [tantek]
17:15:30 [Loqi]
[tantek] #25 Response Type: move "reply" to 2nd to last to enable p-summary fallback use-cases
17:16:41 [cwebber2]
tantek: one thing I wanted to go over was issue 25, eg how to handle replies and fallback, it talks about extensibility a bit, which is adding new features over time which we've done in general for PTD. So specifically for responses, any kind of response like likes, posts, shares, we almost always have text equivalent which is something we've seen when people post things to twitter, or facebook has an "all activity" page where you can
17:16:41 [cwebber2]
see everything you've done
17:16:54 [sandro]
17:17:14 [cwebber2]
tantek: that being the case, if some new response type comes up in the future, like you're bookmarking something or etc then you should always be able to say "hey this is a response" and then have text equivalent in summary property
17:17:36 [cwebber2]
tantek: so any existing impls that don't know as response will be able to show something sensible, as in something author produced that shows something sensible
17:17:51 [cwebber2]
tantek: I wanted to get feedback/observations on whether they agree/disagree, etc
17:18:08 [cwebber2]
sandro: tantek, are you looking for general feedback or a vote?
17:19:13 [cwebber2]
tantek: I feel pretty confident about this change so I wanted to bring to the group explicitly. other than objections and people saying "no you're wrong this will never work", I would like feedback on "this sounds reasonable", but I can accept lack of feedback. Ideally I'd like to say "accept my proposal and publish a new WD based on this change". that's my longest answer to you
17:19:35 [cwebber2]
sandro: anyone have any feedback? seems like that's your quiet answer for now
17:20:04 [cwebber2]
tantek: that's ok, figured this would be a group for feedback, but if people are fine I suggest we publish a new WD with this change
17:20:10 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think that's a reasonable request to make?
17:20:13 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
17:20:17 [eprodrom]
Hey friends
17:20:22 [cwebber2]
sandro: seems fine
17:20:38 [ajordan]
heya eprodrom!
17:20:40 [cwebber2]
tantek: ok, should I do a PROPOSED..?
17:20:40 [ajordan]
17:20:44 [ajordan]
17:20:51 [tantek]
PROPOSED: Publish new WD of Post Type Discovery with change as proposed by editor in
17:20:52 [Loqi]
[tantek] #25 Response Type: move "reply" to 2nd to last to enable p-summary fallback use-cases
17:20:52 [ajordan]
17:20:58 [sandro]
17:21:04 [cwebber2]
17:21:08 [rhiaro]
17:21:17 [aaronpk]
17:21:22 [eprodrom]
17:21:41 [eprodrom]
17:21:46 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: Publish new WD of Post Type Discovery with change as proposed by editor in
17:21:46 [Loqi]
[tantek] #25 Response Type: move "reply" to 2nd to last to enable p-summary fallback use-cases
17:21:48 [eprodrom]
I can't remember if I name checked you or not
17:21:55 [eprodrom]
I'm pretty sure ajordan is in there.
17:22:15 [ajordan]
eprodrom: not explicitly but you meantion " contributors", plural, which I thought was amusing
17:22:19 [eprodrom]
17:22:25 [eprodrom]
17:22:41 [sandro]
even, audio?
17:22:42 [tantek]
eprodrom: are you on the call?
17:22:45 [eprodrom]
Well enough chat I'm supposed to be on a W3C socialwg con call right now
17:22:56 [ajordan]
17:22:59 [sandro]
17:23:21 [eprodrom]
ha ha
17:23:39 [eprodrom]
17:23:42 [eprodrom]
17:23:48 [sandro]
eprodrom can you hear us>?
17:24:55 [eprodrom]
I am here!
17:26:13 [tantek]
chair: eprodrom
17:26:30 [rhiaro]
I can scribe for the next 30 mins
17:26:38 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:26:45 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: ActivityPub
17:26:56 [cwebber2]
17:27:04 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: This week I was going to have to have the test suite up, and I would if it weren't for that meddling language I am using
17:27:10 [rhiaro]
... Screenshot ^ of the test suite
17:27:20 [rhiaro]
... Tried against puckipedia's server and I had the very issue I was afraid of
17:27:40 [rhiaro]
... since I'm uisng a cool new bleeding edge non blocking async implementation, something isn't implemented yet, and I have to add something to the language
17:28:07 [rhiaro]
... hopefully over the next week I will fix the language and have this rolled out
17:28:22 [rhiaro]
... using Guile, a lisp-y Scheme thing
17:28:27 [eprodrom]
17:28:31 [sandro]
17:28:49 [rhiaro]
... Sometimes when your'e o the bleeding edge, you're bleeding.
17:28:52 [tantek]
17:28:59 [ajordan]
"edge" implies cliff
17:29:08 [ajordan]
not "bleeding flat"
17:29:08 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: The test suite is close to completion, but we're seeing bugs because of the underlying platform
17:29:14 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: the client-to-server tests would be up
17:29:16 [rhiaro]
... That stuff is done
17:29:30 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I have a couple of questions
17:29:51 [rhiaro]
... Looking at the screenshot, you have a number of 'OK's - are they not meaningful because of the async problem or is this something someone could run now?
17:29:59 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: All those tests are meaningful
17:30:02 [Loqi]
Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-07-25]]
17:30:06 [rhiaro]
... The failed one is a bug I introduced right before I ran the test suite
17:30:10 [rhiaro]
... The tests are doing their things
17:30:23 [rhiaro]
... they have caught legit things, like http status codes and headers
17:30:30 [rhiaro]
... They work, it's just this blocking thing
17:30:39 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'm wondeirng if there's any point in actually having people start using it immediatley?
17:30:52 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I have a version running that people could look at but one single test that runs over https will pause the whole server
17:30:54 [rhiaro]
... so there's not much point
17:30:58 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: okay cool
17:31:03 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: Moving on..
17:31:07 [rhiaro]
... I have 4 issues on the agenda
17:31:15 [cwebber2]
17:31:16 [Loqi]
[cwebber] #235 Add a Tag type
17:31:17 [rhiaro]
... One is kicked out to an extension, but Evan was going to follow up
17:31:29 [rhiaro]
... Evan you said you'd catch up with jasnell and find out the histoyr of why we don't have a Tag type
17:31:35 [rhiaro]
... Mastodon just went ahead and added it to theirs
17:31:46 [rhiaro]
... Even though we agreed that vocab extensions should move tan extension, I was curious if you'd heard from james
17:31:51 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I haven't talked to james, I will make a note
17:31:55 [rhiaro]
... Could you assign this issue ot me?
17:32:04 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: sure
17:32:08 [tantek]
is this like a tagging action?
17:32:24 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> tantek: no, an object
17:32:30 [cwebber2]
17:32:31 [Loqi]
[cwebber] #244 Accept / Reject a Follow
17:32:38 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: the next one is about the Accept/Reject stuff
17:32:47 [rhiaro]
... talked to evan last week about it.. then did some more reasearch
17:32:55 [rhiaro]
... Some servers think about Follow as 'hey I want to subscribe to your public updates'
17:33:06 [rhiaro]
... in AP you can address to Public and/or followers, but not necessarily both
17:33:14 [rhiaro]
... This is how twitter and mastodon have this concept
17:33:32 [rhiaro]
... in Mastodon you might follow someone. Usually the follow is just automatic, but if they have a private account, they manually accept and reject who they're following
17:33:43 [rhiaro]
... when they send stuff to followers that stuff is not public, it only goes to the followers collection
17:33:48 [rhiaro]
... they're using it as like a trusted friends collection
17:34:09 [cwebber2]
17:34:19 [rhiaro]
... at the end of last meeting, evan suggested we can still use the followers thing for the public subscribe, and pointed out that AS2 has a way of doing this kind of subscription using Offer and Accept/Reject on offer to do friend requests
17:34:33 [rhiaro]
... I took a look and thought about it and unfortunately I think that's going to result in something disjoint, because we'll have two different mechanisms for follow
17:34:44 [rhiaro]
... you still might send a Follow request to somebody and yu would effectivley be a diferent system
17:34:51 [rhiaro]
... AJ raised a concern that maybe we won't get this specified in time
17:35:02 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: These are two very different ways that different social networks do the social graph
17:35:10 [rhiaro]
... The fact there are two different ways to do it is already out of the barn
17:35:32 [ajordan]
17:35:35 [rhiaro]
... LinkedIn does it how facebook does it.. others don't have a two way relationship, instagram, snapchat, twitter
17:35:39 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: twitter for public accounts
17:35:54 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Right. And twitter for private accounts is almost the same except it doesn't have the reciprical follow
17:36:14 [rhiaro]
... We are not going to be able to dictate that all social system should work a particular way, and that's not to our benefit
17:36:22 [rhiaro]
... We should be able to represent both
17:36:38 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: So we have a suggestion that I thoguth was pretty good, summarised in last comment on the issue
17:36:38 [cwebber2]
17:36:39 [Loqi]
[cwebber] Amy suggested over PM that:
17:36:39 [Loqi]
* If a server returns 200 or 201, assume the follow just went through
17:36:39 [Loqi]
* If returning 501, the server doesn't support following
17:36:39 [Loqi]
* If a server returns 202, then the server will send an Accept / Reject
17:36:47 [rhiaro]
... ^
17:37:03 [rhiaro]
... This would be backwards compatible
17:37:20 [rhiaro]
... This does introduce another state which maybe is why evan is -1ing it
17:37:32 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: We just tend to represent this kind of thing as activities not http replies
17:37:46 [rhiaro]
... if you have different types of social graph behaviours we tend to represent them explicitly as json structures
17:37:50 [rhiaro]
... Cant' we have two different mechanisms?
17:37:59 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: if we implemented two different kinds..
17:38:22 [rhiaro]
... a) if we add the Offer and relationship thing we're going ot have to add that like immediately and I'd need your help because I don't think I'd get it completely right
17:38:28 [rhiaro]
... we need to give implementors guidence
17:38:34 [rhiaro]
... and it needs to be in this draft
17:38:53 [rhiaro]
... THe other side of it is I"m not sure the Accept/Reject, aside from backwards incompatability, is so bad, because if you look at the case Mastodon supports both
17:38:59 [rhiaro]
... automatic public accounts, and private accounts
17:39:10 [rhiaro]
... The implementation just automatically returns an accept if it's a public account
17:39:16 [rhiaro]
17:39:22 [rhiaro]
17:39:37 [rhiaro]
... Evan. could you help with the text if we did the Offer thing?
17:39:38 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: No
17:39:48 [rhiaro]
... We can make it required to return an Accept or Reject
17:39:57 [rhiaro]
... The relationship is always uni-directional
17:40:05 [rhiaro]
... You can always structure that bidrectional using automatic requests
17:40:21 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: You can always add those other types of things later right?
17:40:23 [ajordan]
17:40:38 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Right. Alice wants to follow Bob, Alice sends a Follow to Bob and at that point the request is that their relationship is in a waiting state
17:40:45 [rhiaro]
... then Alice should receive either an ACcept or Reject
17:41:01 [rhiaro]
... While it's in the waiting state, Alice should not show up in Bob's list of followers, Bob should not show up in Alice's followees
17:41:13 [rhiaro]
... Maybe there's a third stream of like open invitations that are in waiting
17:41:16 [rhiaro]
... Might be useful for end users
17:41:35 [ajordan]
17:41:36 [ajordan]
17:41:38 [rhiaro]
... There's if Alice's server receives any updates from Bob's server while in the waiting or Rejected state, it should reject them
17:41:38 [ajordan]
17:41:49 [rhiaro]
... So no implicit acceptance becuase you start getting activities
17:41:54 [ajordan]
17:42:03 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I don't know about the reject thing because you can send activities to someone you're not following
17:42:08 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: yep
17:42:20 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: Servers that want to do the automatic reply can just immediately fire an automatic Accept
17:42:26 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: and others can wait for a user input
17:42:30 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: that simplifies things
17:42:32 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Let's do it
17:42:38 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: do we need a resoution?
17:43:04 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> This sounds fine, totally fine with skipping the implicit Accept
17:43:25 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: Resolve issue #244 by having Follow be responded to with an explicit Accept / Reject as mandatory.
17:43:33 [ajordan]
17:43:37 [cwebber2]
17:43:39 [jaywink]
17:43:41 [rhiaro]
17:43:52 [eprodrom]
17:43:56 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I thought you were going to write the text
17:43:59 [tantek]
"mandatory" as must or should?
17:44:16 [rhiaro]
... I mean not today. For discussion next week
17:44:21 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: Sure, that's fine
17:44:30 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: think through the edge cases, then come back with 'this part has been updated'
17:44:35 [tantek]
+1 to what eprodrom just said
17:44:37 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I'll make a note on the ticket
17:44:43 [eprodrom]
17:44:56 [cwebber2]
17:45:25 [cwebber2]
17:45:26 [Loqi]
[puckipedia] #240 Document `Undo`ing Blocks, and maybe reading back Blocks
17:45:51 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: We have documentation about how to do some undos.. two proposals..
17:45:59 [rhiaro]
... 1. We add spec text on how to undo blocks
17:46:08 [rhiaro]
... 2. Should we have a collection fro blocks themselves
17:46:11 [rhiaro]
... We should do these one at a time
17:46:21 [rhiaro]
... So the first one is are people comfortable adding normative spec text about how to undo a block
17:46:23 [tantek]
17:46:29 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: We have general undo discussion already right?
17:46:37 [cwebber2]
17:46:38 [rhiaro]
... This is a refinement of the instructions, not a change in the way you would do undo?
17:46:38 [tantek]
"how to" sounds like guideline, not normative text
17:46:46 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: Right, the current undo phrase is very shrot and very general
17:46:56 [cwebber2]
17:47:06 [rhiaro]
... It says look at these inverse .. and it's referign to the client to server behaviour.. it's kind of vague
17:47:11 [rhiaro]
... side effects should be undone to the extent possible
17:47:18 [rhiaro]
... so you can already imagine what an unblock looks like
17:47:25 [rhiaro]
... so actually it might be fine.. maybe we don't need to add text for that
17:47:38 [rhiaro]
... I would be okay actually saying the text is fine as is
17:47:39 [ajordan]
17:47:51 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'm not sure I have an opinion
17:47:52 [eprodrom]
ack ajordan
17:48:05 [rhiaro]
ajordan: are we sayng that the spec text is good for this issue, for for point 1?
17:48:09 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: for point 1 of the issue
17:48:14 [rhiaro]
... Not the reading back part
17:48:30 [eprodrom]
"For example, Undo may be used to undo a previous Like or Follow." -> "For example, Undo may be used to undo a previous Like, Follow or Block."
17:48:31 [rhiaro]
... I'm moderately convinced actually that the spec text does a good job, and we can move on if everyone else is okay?
17:48:47 [rhiaro]
... Evan I think that resolves it
17:49:14 [rhiaro]
... Thes econd part is whether we should expose a private blocks/blocked collection?
17:49:24 [rhiaro]
... I can't think of the right grammar..
17:49:54 [rhiaro]
... We could add a blocks property to actors and say hey it should be in this collection. Useful for client to server, but suepr weird because only the actor would be able to read that collection. So it would be weird to notice that on a person's profile
17:50:16 [rhiaro]
... Seems strange, but would be okay with adding it
17:50:20 [tantek]
Flickr and Twitter both provide a viewable blocklist. Twitter provides API for reading it too.
17:50:20 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Seems reasonable to me
17:50:32 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I'll write wording and get this back next week
17:50:49 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> cwebber2: I don't think it's weird, from an application standpoint (who is gonna be reading the data) seems fine
17:50:49 [cwebber2]
17:50:50 [Loqi]
[cwebber] #242 sharedInbox / siteInbox type endpoint (publicInbox, but not just for public posts)
17:51:02 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I'm just going for more group input on this cos nobody else was here
17:51:19 [rhiaro]
... Wiat I'm wrong, we discussed this
17:51:26 [rhiaro]
... Don't need to go over that again
17:51:32 [rhiaro]
... I think those are all the issues I wanted to review for this week
17:51:49 [rhiaro]
... Maybe I should make a new WD for next week?
17:51:53 [tantek]
new ED or CR?
17:51:54 [rhiaro]
... a new CR
17:52:07 [rhiaro]
... I think there have been a bunch of non-normative changes. I'll prepare a changelog for next week
17:52:21 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: We have one other item.. about schedule
17:52:38 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: we decided to move the ones we do have to 90 minutes
17:52:40 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: great
17:52:47 [rhiaro]
... Aaron and/or Julien?
17:52:49 [rhiaro]
17:52:54 [cwebber2]
scribenick: cwebber2
17:53:19 [tantek]
what's next for WebSub?
17:53:21 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: I don't think there's anything new from last week, which means that we've got a couple of implementation reports, but nothing new
17:53:25 [tantek]
17:53:25 [cwebber2]
17:53:35 [eprodrom]
ben_thatmustbeme: are you here?
17:54:05 [cwebber2]
tantek: not on JF2 but on websub, I want to know what's next step on websub?
17:54:32 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: good question, I think we have enough implementation reports to have one of each role
17:54:53 [cwebber2]
sandro: last time we talked about this I think I said we also need implementation reports to major existing implementations? mastodon for example
17:54:56 [aaronpk]
s/one of each/two of each
17:55:03 [cwebber2]
tantek: pushback from postActiv
17:55:13 [cwebber2]
17:55:18 [cwebber2]
tantek: and mastodon we don't know of?
17:55:36 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: gargron not willing to submit it himself but suggested someone else could
17:55:46 [cwebber2]
tantek: didn't I see him do it live in #social?
17:55:53 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: oh you're correct, that's hilarious
17:56:09 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: he ran through all tests and reported in irc, so I'll capture that into a report
17:56:21 [cwebber2]
tantek: should be acceptable because you can cite public logs
17:56:27 [cwebber2]
tantek: no news on google yet
17:56:35 [cwebber2]
tantek: what's drop-dead date on transition to PR?
17:56:45 [cwebber2]
sandro: we still have a while, I guess it's really like sometime in november
17:57:00 [cwebber2]
tantek: assuming we want to see Rec happen in-charter?
17:57:04 [cwebber2]
sandro: maybe Nov 1st
17:57:19 [cwebber2]
sandro: 5 weeks before charter, + a week or 2 for holidaze
17:58:15 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: next step to collect, november timeframe for websub?
17:58:26 [cwebber2]
tantek: we believe websub reports exist, are waiting for reports?
17:58:50 [cwebber2]
sandro: I don't think we should wait that long if we don't have to, would be good to have wrapped up in september
17:58:57 [cwebber2]
sandro: unless we have a real reason to wait
18:00:40 [cwebber2]
18:01:57 [cwebber2]
cwebber: just the stuff we discussed today about accept/reject follow, etc, and http signatures, meetings tomorrow
18:02:02 [cwebber2]
TOPIC: MicroPub
18:02:32 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: now that we're in Rec, if people find minor typos or larger possible issues (not adding features) what options might there be for normative issues?
18:02:36 [tantek]
issue link?
18:02:41 [tantek]
github issue link?
18:03:44 [cwebber2]
sandro: my understanding is that in the link you may point to errata, which could point to issues
18:03:53 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: what's the process of going from issue -> errata?
18:04:05 [cwebber2]
sandro: if there seems to be no disagreement, copy it over
18:04:37 [cwebber2]
sandro: more like traditional FOSS'y stuff, just assume everyone speaks for themselves and nobody has authority over anyone else, just document if nobody disagrees, if disagreement then document that too
18:04:46 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: makes sense but looser than I expected
18:05:04 [cwebber2]
sandro: I've never handled a case where errata happens during WG
18:05:20 [cwebber2]
tantek: CSS WG does this all the time
18:05:40 [cwebber2]
tantek: key part is you need to drive resolution of issues to PR
18:05:45 [cwebber2]
tantek: that you should do issue by issue in WG
18:06:01 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think that will help illuminate meta-discussion of how to move forward
18:06:39 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: specific to a specific issue?
18:06:51 [tantek]
the "errata" link in the REC links to
18:06:52 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: there is an issue but I wanted to understand what to do in general since we have a running WG
18:07:20 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: could I pose a suggestion, which is anything you don't feel comfortable unilaterally updating might not be an eratta? may be something normative or which needs to go into next version of spec?
18:07:28 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: that may be a high bar right?
18:07:47 [cwebber2]
tantek: may be a bit too much burden to put on an editor, because it's a REC we have more bearing on what we need to do
18:07:58 [cwebber2]
tantek: we resolve it on how we resolve any other issue
18:08:21 [cwebber2]
tantek: since we have a link in the doc which links to an errata document, a WG resolution on an issue drives addition of stuff to that page. becomes a delta document of sorts
18:08:50 [cwebber2]
tantek: if we get to the point saying this is a non-trivial amount of errata, there's a process for releasing 1.01 or etc. depends on if it's normative or non-normative changes
18:08:57 [cwebber2]
tantek: we can cross those issues when we get there
18:09:03 [cwebber2]
q+ to ask about as2 extensions
18:09:18 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I tend to think of errata to see non-normative changes...
18:09:18 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
18:09:29 [aaronpk]
18:09:30 [Loqi]
[voxpelli] #101 Should string really be a MUST for non-HTML content?
18:09:44 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: I'm on board with typo issues just filing them without discussing them, but this one is technically normative but spirit of this was incorrectly converted into text for the spec
18:09:56 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: the content property MUST either be an html object or a string
18:10:15 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: intent was by default it's text, if html it's html text which allows for ability to do extensions in future we haven't thought of now
18:10:24 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: way we have it now it's not technically possible to do extensions
18:10:36 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: this would be normative, but would allow extensions to happen.
18:10:45 [cwebber2]
tantek: it's normative, but
18:10:52 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: it's extensibility, not a feature itself
18:11:15 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: it's the ability to add features itself, not going to make it so you have to do things differently with current implementation to support features as-described in spec
18:11:28 [cwebber2]
tantek: that depends, what text do you have in terms of what to do when things aren't recognized?
18:11:41 [cwebber2]
tantek: does the spec say what to do if there are additional keys or not in content property?
18:11:53 [cwebber2]
tantek: if that's not explicit, there's work to do to research on right behavior and etc
18:12:16 [cwebber2]
tantek: are we documenting mutual agreement or disagreement?
18:12:21 [cwebber2]
tantek: that makes it basically a feature
18:12:30 [cwebber2]
tantek: feature is for compatibility, essentially
18:12:38 [cwebber2]
tantek: in that case you allow langugage that does
18:12:48 [cwebber2]
tantek: that allows for extensions to happen , etc
18:13:00 [cwebber2]
tantek: not a user-facing feature, but it allows interop
18:13:03 [cwebber2]
18:13:06 [eprodrom]
18:13:11 [eprodrom]
ack cwebber
18:13:11 [Zakim]
cwebber, you wanted to ask about as2 extensions
18:13:35 [ajordan]
cwebber2: agenda+
18:14:00 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I've gotten lost in the conversation... aaronpk you're asking for guidance on normative errata?
18:14:11 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: if they're normative, I'm not sure if there's anything to do but make a new version?
18:14:16 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I'm confused as to next steps
18:14:30 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: for this particular issue, can this be filed as errata even though it's normative is question #1
18:14:39 [tantek]
regardless, good to start processing open issues (consensus on spec text change, document spec text change on errata page)
18:15:00 [cwebber2]
sandro: can be filed as a recognized problem, but we can't say here is the approved solution... we can only take a solution as far as what would be a working draft, but we can't have w3c recognition on approved solution
18:15:20 [cwebber2]
tantek: if we believe resolution is what's approved we can take it to CR directly without WD
18:15:28 [cwebber2]
sandro: in theory, I'm not sure that's part of approved use of time
18:15:36 [cwebber2]
tantek: if it's a non-breaking change, maybe can move to PR directly
18:15:50 [cwebber2]
sandro: before anything goes to AC, I need to see if it's in-scope for extension which is debatable
18:16:05 [cwebber2]
tantek: it's open for interpretation, but IMO maintenance is something any charter extension would/should support
18:16:36 [cwebber2]
tantek: but before we try to answser the hard problem, if there are any typos or etc that you can resolve by proposing errata text to add to the doc etc and add to them, that would be a good start
18:16:51 [cwebber2]
tantek: maybe cherry pick an easy one for the next telcon, try to reduce set of open issues down to harder ones
18:16:59 [cwebber2]
tantek: can try to figure out least-impact path forward for those
18:17:06 [ajordan]
agenda+ cwebber2's as2 extensions question
18:17:13 [cwebber2]
tantek: it'll keep you iterating with charter question
18:17:15 [ajordan]
18:17:26 [cwebber2]
tantek: to make it normative we have to go through process sandro suggested
18:17:36 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: sounds reasonable to me
18:17:47 [tantek]
also notice there are open Webmention issues:
18:18:00 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: all you needed for micropub?
18:18:04 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: yes
18:18:04 [tantek]
so it's maybe worth starting Webmention errata similarly
18:18:12 [ajordan]
AS2 issues too:
18:18:31 [tantek]
thanks ajordan
18:18:38 [ajordan]
18:18:44 [tantek]
also note, zero open LDN issues: therefore no need to errata anything
18:19:37 [ajordan]
18:19:49 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: read through AS2 extension document first
18:19:53 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: sounds good
18:19:57 [eprodrom]
ack ajordan
18:20:21 [cwebber2]
ajordan: I just wanted to point out that there's an open issue about submitting to IANA that seems particularly important to resolve
18:20:22 [ajordan]
18:20:23 [tantek]
q+ to quickly mention Webmention issues and errata
18:20:23 [Loqi]
[dissolve] #424 register media type with IANA
18:20:30 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: that would be me, will look
18:20:51 [tantek]
18:20:59 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I think that's our last item, if there's anything else we have 10 more minutes I'd love to get back
18:21:01 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
18:21:01 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to quickly mention Webmention issues and errata
18:21:24 [cwebber2]
tantek: similar to micropub we have open webmention issues that are probably worth processing into webmention errata, so aaronpk maybe see if you can quickly document into errata etc
18:21:45 [cwebber2]
tantek: vs request for new feature too, you can document separately, point is to process open issues
18:21:55 [cwebber2]
18:21:57 [sandro]
mine too
18:22:00 [cwebber2]
phone decided meeting over :)
18:22:00 [aaronpk]
oh good not just me
18:22:03 [eprodrom]
18:22:11 [eprodrom]
We are close to done. I am still on the call.
18:22:11 [cwebber2]
seemed like a good place to stop
18:22:17 [aaronpk]
ha can't dial back in
18:22:19 [eprodrom]
OK, mine just stopped too
18:22:35 [ajordan]
aaronpk: same
18:22:41 [eprodrom]
OK, so, meeting over? Let's wrap now and we can discuss next meeting.
18:22:50 [cwebber2]
18:22:54 [eprodrom]
tantek: did you have an additional point, or can we wrap?
18:23:15 [tantek]
was dropped mid sentence
18:23:36 [tantek]
point is to process open issues, and add to the errata accordingly, and close the issues hopefully, keeping the number of open issues at 0
18:24:04 [eprodrom]
OK, let's wrap up.
18:24:07 [eprodrom]
Thanks, tantek
18:24:08 [tantek]
18:24:10 [tantek]
18:24:12 [eprodrom]
Thanks everyone
18:24:19 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
18:24:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:24:19 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been sandro, tantek, aaronpk, jaywink, ajordan, rhiaro, cwebber, eprodrom
18:24:23 [ajordan]
thanks all
18:24:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:24:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:24:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:24:28 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items