IRC log of social on 2016-06-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:00:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:00:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/21-social-irc
17:00:26 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:00:26 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:00:28 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:00:28 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
17:00:29 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:00:29 [trackbot]
Date: 21 June 2016
17:01:11 [cwebber2]
oh hi Arnaud
17:01:17 [aaronpk]
all my technology is failing
17:01:19 [cwebber2]
present+
17:01:21 [Arnaud]
present+
17:01:37 [Arnaud]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-21
17:01:41 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
17:01:56 [Arnaud]
tantek can't make the call today and asked me to take over chairing
17:02:12 [aaronpk]
present+
17:02:39 [aaronpk]
can you hear me?
17:02:53 [paul]
present +
17:02:55 [eprodrom]
present+
17:03:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
present+
17:03:10 [aaronpk]
redialing
17:03:52 [KevinMarks]
I'm on but muted, didn't hear aaron
17:03:57 [wilkie]
present+
17:04:07 [wilkie]
I hear you!
17:04:09 [aaronpk]
woo
17:04:13 [KevinMarks]
present+
17:04:21 [aaronpk]
ironically hangouts never seems to work for me in chrome. had to dial from safari
17:05:03 [sandro]
present+
17:07:01 [rhiaro]
present+
17:07:01 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:07:23 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Approval of f2f minutes
17:07:51 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-06-minutes
17:07:52 [rhiaro]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-06-minutes
17:07:59 [rhiaro]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-07-minutes
17:07:59 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-07-minutes
17:08:00 [KevinMarks]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-07-minutes
17:08:06 [KevinMarks]
is where micropub is discussed
17:08:17 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: there's a -1 from tantek about approval of micropub for CR is missing
17:08:33 [KevinMarks]
the resolution is in that
17:08:57 [rhiaro]
... MIcropub going to CR was discussed on 2nd day, June 7th, resolution is there to publish new ED
17:08:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
I don't think it was there at the time of his -1
17:09:03 [rhiaro]
... But no resolution on CR
17:09:10 [rhiaro]
... Does anybody remember?
17:09:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
oh, nevermind
17:09:37 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: did we vote on that at the f2f or in the previous telecon
17:09:40 [rhiaro]
sandro: at the face to face I'm pretty sure
17:10:09 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: I know it stopped tracking minutes at some point
17:10:18 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: the bot caught that up, that was fixed
17:10:26 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: we can approve June 6, we need to do archeology on the 2nd day
17:10:34 [rhiaro]
... If we are missing minutes maybe somebody has a personal log?
17:10:37 [KevinMarks]
or public log?
17:10:58 [aaronpk]
logs here: http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2016-06-07
17:11:23 [eprodrom]
http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2016-06-07/line/1465317064307
17:11:53 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: this resolution was captured about WD, no mention of CR
17:12:05 [rhiaro]
... Maybe it's the way the proposal and the resolution were worded?
17:12:08 [aaronpk]
we started this document too https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Micropub_CR
17:12:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
should we just make the official resolution again?
17:12:37 [rhiaro]
sandro: we wouldn't have made the transition request document if we hadn't
17:12:42 [rhiaro]
... I'm checking my irc logs
17:13:58 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: let's not spend too much time on this, see if we can track this down
17:14:02 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: tantek and I will do that
17:14:11 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of June 6 2016
17:14:12 [cwebber2]
iirc Loqi logs this channel right?
17:14:19 [eprodrom]
+1
17:14:22 [cwebber2]
+1
17:14:23 [rhiaro]
+1
17:14:26 [aaronpk]
+1
17:14:32 [paul]
_1
17:14:34 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: that's the url i pasted above (socialwg.indiewebcamp)
17:14:38 [cwebber2]
oh oops
17:14:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
I could not find it in my irc logs
17:14:43 [paul]
+1
17:14:43 [cwebber2]
thx aaronpk
17:14:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
17:14:48 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of June 6 2016 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-06-minutes
17:15:11 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: AS2
17:15:17 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: evan, anything blocking?
17:15:52 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: At the f2f we had gone through some additional requirements for the document including implementation report template, that kind of stuff, those are all now in the documents
17:16:01 [rhiaro]
... We also chose to move it from jasnell's personal github to w3c github namespace
17:16:06 [eprodrom]
http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/vocabulary/
17:16:12 [eprodrom]
http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/url/
17:16:12 [rhiaro]
... So as of right now we have up to date documents at these two urls
17:16:22 [eprodrom]
http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/core/
17:16:26 [wilkie]
and I fixed the links on the socialwg wiki to point to them
17:16:30 [wilkie]
not sure if there are any other links
17:16:43 [rhiaro]
... These are mostly editorial changes, the big editorial change was adding an implementation report template and including that
17:17:02 [rhiaro]
... Ready for submission of new implementation reports by email or github PR
17:17:13 [Arnaud]
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams
17:17:14 [rhiaro]
... Our issue list is at 0
17:17:29 [rhiaro]
... The last outstanding task for me is making sure the transition req is filled out. I have to answer some questions on that.
17:17:44 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: Ist here a schedule for the call?
17:17:59 [rhiaro]
sandro: Is the test suite stuff done, the cross linking between two different testing systems?
17:18:17 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: links from the document to the different test suites, link to the paresable data and a link to the validator
17:18:22 [rhiaro]
sandro: they don't link to each other but I guess that's okay
17:18:30 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I can put links on each of them if that's what we need to get done
17:18:58 [aaronpk]
q+
17:19:08 [rhiaro]
... I'll do an issue for a link to the validator from the test documents directory with a readme
17:19:45 [rhiaro]
... And a link from the validator to ... one thing that I did with this last push is that I moved the test data into the spec document repo, it was easier to keep everything all together. May do that with the validator code too
17:19:48 [Arnaud]
ack aaronpk
17:20:18 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I just found a random URL in the test suite and dropped it into the validator and it gives a warning that it should have an 'id' property, so I thought that it might be good to check the test suite data actually validates
17:20:23 [rhiaro]
... Looks like the examples are missing ids
17:20:38 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: we can keep working on the test suite, but good that you point that out
17:21:39 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: with AS2, there are very few required properties. A name is almost always required, an id is usually required, so we give warnings. We have examples.. one example we have is an empty object. So we have examples that processors should be able to consume and should be able to parse, however when they're put through the validator they'll show warning because they're poor style. Does that make sense?
17:21:54 [sandro]
q?
17:22:13 [aaronpk]
https://as2.rocks/validate?url=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent.com%2Fw3c%2Factivitystreams%2Fmaster%2Ftest%2Fvocabulary-ex129-jsonld.json
17:22:14 [rhiaro]
... If you put an empty document through as2.rocks ... I think need to have a testable system for consumers and we need to have test data that's useful to help them test edge cases, but we also have to have those notifications in the validator for those edge cases
17:22:22 [sandro]
( Arnaud, I'd like to return to Micropub CR this meeting, soon )
17:23:05 [Arnaud]
ok
17:23:14 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: How do I know what to do with the data ? How do I know if my code is properly handling it?
17:23:30 [cwebber2]
q+
17:23:40 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: What should your code do? Send an email, fetch a url, put a pin into a map. I'm not sure if there's a correct behaviour we can require out of these processors. What we're looking for is can you parse it, does it look right within your framework
17:23:44 [Arnaud]
ack cwebber2
17:23:49 [Arnaud]
ack cwebber
17:24:32 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I just wanted to follow up; we've discussed this before, AS2 is a vocab and the testing toosl around it don't and can't enfoce side effects. That's what AP and ActivitySub do, they're examples of real requirements of implementing that. This has come up before and we specifically went against requiring side effects to have in the tests, as this isn't specified in the vocabulary
17:24:55 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I just want to know how I know if my code is handling it
17:25:10 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: How would we know that? Ther'es no way to know that? There are a million different things you could do
17:25:16 [rhiaro]
... We can't require any behaviour out of these systems
17:25:27 [rhiaro]
... One way you might know is if you're writing a parser and your parser doesn't throw any errors, that's one good way
17:25:40 [rhiaro]
... So what wev'e done is provide some documents that are known good, and that's about the extent we can go to
17:25:47 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I'd rather not we have this discussion again, we've gone over it
17:25:55 [rhiaro]
... There's only so much testing we can do
17:26:18 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: One thing we could do is are you looking for some comments on this? Like this is a place, this has all the optional attributes of a place... something like that?
17:26:46 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: The other way to handle that is are there examples of documents that are known bad, so I know that if I parse this document I should see an error? That would help give me something to test
17:26:54 [rhiaro]
... Otherwise I'm just parsing a json document and tha'ts all I'm testing
17:27:06 [rhiaro]
... If there are examples of valid json documents that are invalid AS2 documents I can use that to test parsing as2
17:27:10 [sandro]
q?
17:27:13 [sandro]
q+
17:27:25 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: That sounds good. We can put together test documents that are known invalid AS2 documents
17:27:29 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: THat would definitely help me
17:27:37 [Arnaud]
ack sandro
17:28:08 [rhiaro]
sandro: but mostly I think you have to hand inspect each one. You're supposed to look at the document, read the spec, and see if your app does whatever makes sense to do for that content. That's my expectation of what it means to be a conforming consumer. You can't automate consumer testing of AS2
17:28:17 [rhiaro]
... That may be something to say prominently on the readme around these files
17:28:43 [cwebber-argh]
cwebber-argh has joined #social
17:28:47 [rhiaro]
... The implementation report around consumers presumably say something like my appication understands what this vocabulary temr means and does something meaningful with it. There's no way to automatically test that given it's all human behaviours.. it turns into some html or pixels on the screen
17:28:52 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: makes sense
17:28:58 [cwebber-argh]
server I was connected to for irc is unreachable
17:29:41 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Yeah the implementation document covers all of the object classes, each property of each object class, the core and extended vocab, and asks whether you implemented that class, and for each property did you implement it, and a place for comments
17:29:55 [rhiaro]
... So if you implemented audio class but you don't necessarily process wav files or something, you could put that kind of comment into there
17:30:04 [cwebber-argh]
also we had a heavy discussion about this in SF and after and came to the conclusions about how to go about testing and etc, I really feel like this has been move forwarded with after already being discussed to death
17:30:09 [rhiaro]
sandro: do you think it's possible peopel might see that and go.. I have a json parser therefore I'm implementing all of this?
17:30:30 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: We say in our document your application must use this, just passing through unrecognised properties doesn't count as an 'implementation'
17:30:35 [eprodrom]
"For each core class your application implements, note which properties of the class it uses. Here, "implements" means that your application uses the property directly; just passing through unrecognized properties doesn't count as an "implementation"."
17:31:11 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I think this is good, still some things to be tied up, but I don't hear anything that would stop us on the CR request
17:31:18 [rhiaro]
... We already have a resolution
17:31:32 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'd like to take the current version and take the new links to WD and we do need a resolution on that
17:32:04 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: publish the latest editor's draft of AS 2
17:32:12 [aaronpk]
+1
17:32:14 [eprodrom]
+1
17:32:14 [cwebber-argh]
+1
17:32:15 [rhiaro]
+1
17:32:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
17:32:23 [sandro]
+1 (as new WD)
17:32:44 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: publish the latest editor's draft of AS 2 as new WD
17:32:54 [KevinMarks]
+1
17:33:12 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: sandro, you'll work on the scheduling and sending the request?
17:33:14 [rhiaro]
sandro: yes
17:33:32 [rhiaro]
sandro: Back to micropub. I did find me IRC log and it looks like we messed up and we didn't record that
17:33:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
obviously tantek did understand that was well
17:33:45 [rhiaro]
... I certainly understood that we had. I've talked to Wendy about it. But it's not in the record, so that's an oops
17:33:54 [rhiaro]
... I guess the easiest thing to do would be to do that resolution now?
17:34:00 [KevinMarks]
makes sense
17:34:04 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Move MicroPub to CR
17:34:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
17:34:09 [eprodrom]
+1
17:34:13 [KevinMarks]
+1
17:34:14 [aaronpk]
+1
17:34:14 [cwebber-argh]
+1
17:34:29 [sandro]
+1 (I feel we decided this as the F2F but it didnt get recorded)
17:34:55 [wilkie]
+1
17:34:58 [rhiaro]
+1
17:35:05 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Move MicroPub to CR
17:35:05 [cwebber2]
whew, back on this server :)
17:35:08 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:35:08 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2016/06/21-social-irc#T17-35-08
17:35:22 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Micropub
17:35:28 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: want to add anything on status of WD?
17:35:43 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I went through all the issues from the f2f and published a new WD yesterday. All work we had agreed on at the f2f
17:35:47 [rhiaro]
... No more open issues on that
17:36:08 [aaronpk]
https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub/
17:36:10 [rhiaro]
sandro: as far as you know we're ready to finish the transition request. Wouldn't hurt for people to give it another read
17:36:28 [rhiaro]
... Later today I'll look over them both and try to send them
17:36:37 [rhiaro]
... Evan do you think you'll be able to do your publication today?
17:37:05 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I think so. There may be some trickiness with the fact we've moved to a different ED location. I'm not sure if the echidna token stays valid...
17:37:10 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I'm pretty sure they do
17:37:21 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: If that works then I should probably be able to do it after the call
17:37:33 [rhiaro]
sandro: I will circulate a doodle poll once I have a little more data from folks
17:37:49 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: jf2, fpwd
17:38:15 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: I ran out of the meeting early last time and we resolved to get there. I don't know where to go next. I need to work out with sandro to get a token to publish
17:38:20 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: It doesn't work for the fpwd
17:38:23 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: So then I don't know
17:38:50 [rhiaro]
sandro: we've already got the approval from wendy for that so it's the talking with the webmaster
17:38:59 [rhiaro]
... I guess send me an email with the pointers to what you've got and I'll try to help you from there
17:39:12 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: ok
17:39:30 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: post type discovery
17:39:39 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: tantek is not here, so we skip for this week?
17:39:57 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: he presented a new version at the f2f but I'm not sure if there have been any new devleopments on it since then
17:40:13 [sandro]
FPWD was approved
17:40:28 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I see there are open issues so this is work in progress obviously
17:40:43 [rhiaro]
sandro: the main thing is this was approved for fpwd by the group and wendy, so we are ready to publish once he turns the crank, same as ben
17:40:58 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: unelss anybody else has anything to add I think we can leave it at this for this week?
17:41:02 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Webmention
17:41:29 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: We have received a couple of implementation reports, one from ben and one from GNU Social
17:41:31 [aaronpk]
https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/blob/master/implementation-reports/gnusocial.md
17:41:33 [rhiaro]
... That's pretty exciting
17:41:50 [rhiaro]
... Three including mine. HOpefully we'll get more coming in
17:42:12 [rhiaro]
... I have been working on the issues and published a new ED with a lot of the issues addressed. Still a couple of open ones
17:42:27 [aaronpk]
http://webmention.net/draft/
17:42:28 [rhiaro]
... One in particular I would like to get some help on, but I can chat offline about that, it's a minor thing
17:42:32 [rhiaro]
... So new ED yesterday
17:42:37 [rhiaro]
... Not ready to publish a WD of that yet
17:42:51 [eprodrom]
q+
17:43:05 [Arnaud]
ack eprodrom
17:43:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i had wanted to show off mf2 -> as2 conversion for SOME things, but my hosting provider is having issues, so i'll hold off on that
17:43:20 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I have a question for aaronpk
17:43:41 [rhiaro]
... I looked through exit criteria for webmention. Report for GNU Social has a couple of unchecked boxes, I assume that's going to be the case for all implementations
17:43:58 [rhiaro]
... What happens if we have 3 implementations or 5 implementations, and none of them pass discovery test 17 for example
17:44:14 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: my understanding is that each part needs to be implemented by at least 2, but no implementation has to implement everything
17:44:29 [rhiaro]
... If there is something that nobody has implemented we take it out of the spec because it had no purpose. But correct me if I'm wrong
17:44:31 [rhiaro]
sandro: that sounds right
17:44:50 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: The exit criteria is every feature has to be implemented by two implementations at least
17:45:06 [rhiaro]
... If one part is not implemented, one way to deal with it is to prompt implementors to implement it
17:45:28 [rhiaro]
... Then you can declare victory and move forards. Downside is you're focring peopel to implement something they don't care about
17:45:34 [rhiaro]
... Other thing to do would take a resolution from the wg, to publish a new CR without that feature
17:45:40 [sandro]
Yeah -- nudging people to implement something just for the spec is a BAD IDEA. (and I confess I've done it several times. With lots of regret.)
17:45:42 [rhiaro]
... Still delayed because of process
17:45:53 [rhiaro]
... Just a matter of a few weeks
17:46:10 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: is this non-normative things, or only normative?
17:46:17 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: non-normative is editorial, we can change anything we want
17:46:24 [rhiaro]
... Between CR and PR you can change anything that's not normative
17:46:33 [rhiaro]
... Only talking about what impacts compliance
17:46:38 [rhiaro]
sandro: I'm a little fuzzy about the SHOULDs
17:47:00 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: Do you think that we can .. I don't think we can freely change places where the spec says you SHOULD do this.. we can't just take those out or add those
17:47:09 [rhiaro]
s/Arnaud/sandro
17:47:13 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I think technically you can
17:47:22 [rhiaro]
sandro: I think it would invalidate reivews. I wouldn't want to do that withotu careful thought
17:47:33 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I agree with that, just because you can doesn't mean you should. Probably wise not to do that casually
17:47:38 [eprodrom]
q+
17:47:45 [Arnaud]
ack eprodrom
17:48:52 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: the only thing that I'm getting out of.. looking at the gnu social implementation.. seems like they skipped some of the security and verification suggestions, which I think are that's up to you if you choose not to implement the security ocnsiderations, but if we see a pattern there where we see no-one implements the chekc of not accepting webmentions that are in an html comment, I wonder if that informs any decision making we do later on. Do we
17:48:52 [rhiaro]
change it in the spec?
17:49:25 [rhiaro]
... We're suggesting some verification, validation and security parts of the implementation. We have at least one case where somoene has skipped a lot. If we see people skipping a lot is that cause for concern for us?
17:49:40 [sandro]
q+ to ask about test 13 & 17
17:49:43 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: You could write up an issue to say you think we got it wrong about security and we need to change the spec to make it reuqired
17:49:58 [rhiaro]
... Then we'd need a new CR and new implementation reports
17:50:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk, i don't actually see in the spec reference to ignoring links in HTML comments actually
17:50:52 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'm going to keep an eye open. i think that in writing most of our specs we are saying it's okay to do x because you will also do y. It's okay to include this link in your page because you're also going to be verifying the link was in this webmention. It's okay to include unverified properties in your AS2 because you're going to be checking this and this. But if you don't do the checks, i makes those other parts more dangerous
17:50:53 [sandro]
q-
17:51:00 [rhiaro]
... I'll keep an eye on this. I'll raise it if it seems to be a pattern
17:51:07 [rhiaro]
... Aaron, for your implementation did you do these security considerations?
17:51:17 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: My implementation passes all of the webmention.rocks test
17:51:37 [rhiaro]
... In security I think mine.. I don't moderate, I displya them immediately. I don't reverify. I don't have a byte limit, but I do have a time limit
17:52:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i had wanted to show off mf2 -> as2 conversion for SOME things, but my hosting provider is having issues, so i'll hold off on that
17:52:16 [cwebber2]
+q
17:52:22 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: We have 8 minutes left, anything else?
17:52:24 [Arnaud]
ack cwebber
17:52:31 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I thought I'd give an update on activitypub stuff
17:52:59 [rhiaro]
... One thing is that jessica and I have done some large refactoring of the document that's making things structurally better to reduce effort when we split into two documents
17:53:02 [aaronpk]
ben_thatmustbeme, i don't think it needs to explicitly say ignore links in comments since it says to explicitly look for <a> <img> and <video> and similar tags
17:53:13 [rhiaro]
... So I have also completely marked up locally everything that needs to be done towards that and am working on that
17:53:20 [rhiaro]
... Meanwhile jessica merged a couple of issues we'd discussed
17:53:46 [rhiaro]
... And there's a PR from jessica that we're looking at merging, we just need to refactor it to the existing refactor that just happened. THerew as also some discussion we should have next week about authentication stuff
17:53:49 [rhiaro]
... Not now, possibly complicated
17:54:01 [rhiaro]
... One positivie thing, I should have a minimal implementation of AP done that I could report on
17:54:05 [rhiaro]
... That I can point to
17:54:09 [rhiaro]
... That's mostly it
17:54:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aah aaronpk, i see that now, that does make sense, yes
17:54:15 [rhiaro]
... One other thing that's not AP related
17:54:20 [rhiaro]
... More about implementations of AS2
17:54:40 [rhiaro]
... I had recently updated activipy to handle the id and type aliases, and as we discussed you don't need @id and @type, we support id and type
17:55:00 [rhiaro]
... I supported that from a consumption standpoint, but I'm still outputting @id and @type. In a certain sense it's easier for me because I'm using json-ld tooling
17:55:15 [rhiaro]
... Using the context for @id and @type as aliases is kind of -cwebber2 cuts off-
17:55:53 [rhiaro]
... Is it mandatory to use them without the @, and we expect all AS2 documents do use them without the @ or is that optional?
17:56:04 [rhiaro]
... It's not clear in the document currently, it says they're equivalent, doesn't require
17:56:31 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: that question is above my pay grade
17:56:46 [rhiaro]
... The way that we've structured the aliases, it's preferable for publishers to output without the @
17:56:50 [rhiaro]
... But it's still valid AS2 if you have them
17:57:13 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I'm going to make the change to make it output them without, so I'll do that soon but not immediately if it's still valid
17:57:22 [rhiaro]
q+
17:57:37 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: If you want to, feel free to put that as an agenda item for next week
17:57:40 [Arnaud]
ack rhiaro
17:58:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
it was my understanding as well that the @id should always be id
17:58:50 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: if both are allowed, what's the point of the alias?
17:58:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
etc
17:59:02 [rhiaro]
... It's a massive pain to check for both
17:59:08 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'd like to put this on the agenda for next week
17:59:12 [rhiaro]
... I'll be better informed then
17:59:18 [rhiaro]
... and what that means for publishers and consumers
17:59:33 [rhiaro]
... I understand for consumers it's an extra burden to check for both and it would be good to minimise that burden
17:59:48 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: every time you add some flexibility it means more pain
18:00:06 [rhiaro]
... Anything else? We're out of time
18:00:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro++
18:00:21 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 207 karma
18:00:28 [rhiaro]
... Have a good day :)
18:01:38 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
18:01:38 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:01:38 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been cwebber, Arnaud, aaronpk, eprodrom, ben_thatmustbeme, wilkie, KevinMarks, sandro, rhiaro
18:01:46 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:01:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/21-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:01:47 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:01:47 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items