IRC log of social on 2016-07-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:02:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:02:37 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/07/12-social-irc
17:02:39 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:02:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:02:41 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:02:41 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
17:02:42 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:02:42 [trackbot]
Date: 12 July 2016
17:02:45 [sandro]
present+
17:02:46 [aaronpk]
present+
17:02:49 [rhiaro]
present+
17:02:55 [akuckartz]
present+
17:02:57 [cwebber2]
present+
17:03:21 [csarven]
present+
17:04:08 [wilkie]
present+
17:04:21 [eprodrom]
present+
17:05:06 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
17:05:57 [annbass]
present+
17:06:49 [cwebber2]
I can scrib3e
17:06:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
present+
17:06:55 [KevinMarks]
present+
17:07:08 [tantek]
present+
17:07:09 [tantek]
scribenick:cwebber2
17:07:13 [aaronpk]
brb calling in from another phone
17:07:17 [cwebber2]
tantek: is julian here today?
17:07:48 [wilkie]
cwebber2: julien
17:07:51 [cwebber2]
... I don't see him on irc. Well we have a new invited expert, hopefully he'll be able to make it to one of our telecons soon
17:07:54 [tantek]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-07-05-minutes
17:07:57 [aaronpk]
back
17:08:02 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: thx wilkie
17:08:15 [cwebber2]
tantek: next agenda item is approval of minutes
17:08:45 [akuckartz]
avacado+
17:09:26 [eprodrom]
Ready for proposal
17:09:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
17:09:34 [annbass]
+1
17:09:35 [rhiaro]
+1
17:09:37 [eprodrom]
+1
17:09:38 [cwebber2]
... not seeing any +1s or anything
17:09:43 [csarven]
+1
17:09:44 [cwebber2]
... oh okay
17:09:45 [aaronpk]
+1
17:09:46 [wilkie]
+1
17:09:48 [akuckartz]
+1
17:09:50 [cwebber2]
... thank you everyone
17:10:01 [cwebber2]
... I declare the minutes approved
17:10:11 [eprodrom]
cwebber2, can you do the resolutions for Tantek pls?
17:10:37 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: eprodrom, I forget the syntax, it's just PROPOSED and then RESOLVED right?
17:11:01 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED 2016-07-05 minutes approval
17:11:15 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: there were a few things to address, I've been working on a new draft that should be ready to go, I've summarized the pages in document
17:11:26 [aaronpk]
http://micropub.net/draft/
17:12:04 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: here's the latest micropub draft, I've added in a link to the test suite describing what the test suite will do, I've added conformance and exit criteria listing all features you'd expect, basically spec infrastructure we did with webmention
17:12:08 [cwebber2]
... that's all in place now
17:12:29 [cwebber2]
... this should be ready to publish as CR, but since there were other issues addressed as well, I'd like to publish as a Working Draft
17:12:33 [sandro]
+1 publish as WD
17:12:37 [eprodrom]
cwebber2 yes
17:12:43 [aaronpk]
changes described here http://micropub.net/draft/#changes-from-21-june-2016-wd-to-this-version
17:12:45 [sandro]
(while waiting for CR)
17:13:16 [aaronpk]
https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/34
17:13:20 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: so the accessibility group looked over all 5 specs, only had comments about micropub, they said they'd like examples of posts including accessibility info, such as alt-text on an image
17:13:32 [cwebber2]
... I've opened this as an issue on micropub
17:13:55 [cwebber2]
... main issue is there isn't a syntax to provide alt-text of an image, because microformats doesn't either, and it's based on it
17:14:12 [cwebber2]
... so I've opened an issue on microformats to track that as well... so that's blocked until we can solve from MicroFormats side
17:14:52 [cwebber2]
tantek: from SocialWG perspective of studying proprietary APIs, have you done any background research as how twitter, instagram, etc have provided alt-text of an image, or if they do at all? if they don't that's also useful info
17:14:55 [eprodrom]
q+
17:14:58 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: I will do research on other apis
17:15:02 [cwebber2]
tantek: ok
17:15:44 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so I wonder if the alt text is really distinct from title or comment on the image, and if those are supported?
17:16:01 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: I believe from the accessibility point of view, alt text is different from title or description
17:16:24 [annbass]
q+
17:16:26 [cwebber2]
... from what I've seen of people who actually consume alt-text of images, it's a description of the image, rather than what someone says about the post
17:16:40 [cwebber2]
tantek: that's my understanding as well, and twitter allows you to enter alt-text as a separate field in the ui
17:16:55 [cwebber2]
... so from a ux perspective, certainly a deistinction
17:17:18 [annbass]
q-
17:17:32 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
17:17:39 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: the best path forward is to do some research on APIs and document that
17:17:53 [cwebber2]
... and continue discussion on the github thread
17:18:00 [cwebber2]
tantek: would you still like to publish a WD?
17:18:01 [annbass]
q+
17:18:05 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: yes with everything as of today
17:18:08 [wilkie]
alt-text is objective and a title is subjective. yeah, twitter is a good example of allowing one person to provide both types of description.
17:18:38 [cwebber2]
tantek: it may be good to discuss inline that there's an outstanding issue and summarize and link to it so that anyone else reviewing the draft can go "oh yeah someone took a look at this"
17:18:40 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: can do
17:18:46 [aaronpk]
http://micropub.net/draft/
17:18:47 [cwebber2]
tantek: is there an ED the group can look at?
17:18:54 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: yes online here --^
17:19:24 [tantek]
http://micropub.net/draft/#changes-from-21-june-2016-wd-to-this-version
17:19:48 [cwebber2]
tantek: looks like these changes are pretty minor, is there anything you'd like to call out?
17:20:10 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: most of the text is the same, the differences from webmention specifically is summarizing other parts of the spec
17:20:24 [tantek]
http://micropub.net/draft/#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria
17:20:26 [cwebber2]
... eg the features, I created that from reading the whole spec and trying to describe a feature
17:20:38 [cwebber2]
... everything else I think matches webmention pretty closely
17:21:04 [cwebber2]
tantek: let's put a proposal down then for the request that aaron made to publish a new WD
17:21:31 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED new draft of micropub at http://micropub.net/draft/ with addition of image upload alt-text feedback
17:21:35 [annbass]
+1
17:21:39 [akuckartz]
+1
17:21:39 [aaronpk]
+1
17:21:39 [cwebber2]
+1
17:21:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
17:21:45 [rhiaro]
+1
17:21:50 [eprodrom]
+1
17:21:54 [wilkie]
+1
17:21:57 [KevinMarks]
+1
17:21:59 [sandro]
+1
17:22:00 [annbass]
q-
17:22:21 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED new draft of micropub at http://micropub.net/draft/ with addition of image upload alt-text feedback
17:22:50 [cwebber2]
tantek: that leads us to AS2 updates, assuming there are no other issues from micropub
17:22:52 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: correct
17:22:59 [cwebber2]
tantek: so AS2 I assume is eprodrom
17:23:01 [tantek]
topic: AS2 update
17:23:15 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: sure, so we had CR transition meeting which went well
17:23:26 [cwebber2]
... we had one major element from meeting, which was at-risk features
17:23:47 [cwebber2]
... we could have as exit criteria which was that any features not implemented in at least 2 implementations need to be marked for removal
17:23:55 [cwebber2]
... making it possible to have a bit more of a process in removing elements
17:24:04 [cwebber2]
... we got pushback on this for probably some pretty valid reasons
17:24:17 [cwebber2]
... first of all, we didn't actually use the term "at risk" which is the proper term for w3c
17:24:33 [cwebber2]
... so we were putting every feature "at risk" but not flagging(?) them "at risk"
17:25:10 [cwebber2]
... the second is the question of whether it makes sense that everything at risk, with the reductio ad absurdum (?) that nothing is implemented, or we have a small set of features and types that don't really hang together or have relationship together
17:25:43 [cwebber2]
... so ralph has suggested that we identify a small number of classes which will definitely be in a future version, where we wouldn't be able to go forward without those types and properties
17:25:45 [eprodrom]
http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/core/#atrisk
17:25:54 [tantek]
s/ralph/Ralph (as acting Director for the CR telcon)
17:26:09 [cwebber2]
... so what I did for this version is there's a new editor's version you can see here, which includes the term at risk
17:26:16 [annbass]
s/Ralph /Ralph Swick/
17:26:43 [cwebber2]
... almost everything at risk, which gives 4 core types (object, link, activity, ??, question)
17:26:51 [cwebber2]
... and three types that almost would be impossible to get around using
17:27:08 [cwebber2]
... and those are not at risk, and I framed it as the negative, that everything is at risk except these things
17:27:19 [cwebber2]
... this could meet requirement of meeting without leaving a smudge on the table
17:27:34 [cwebber2]
... gives our implementers to give an opportunity to say "these are the types I can count on being there"
17:27:53 [eprodrom]
http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/vocabulary/#atrisk
17:27:53 [cwebber2]
... and we have a similar section in vocabulary, however it just links to the core version
17:28:10 [cwebber2]
... so it's more of a "there are things at risk here", you can check which ones are in the core version
17:28:13 [cwebber2]
... so that's the first item
17:28:37 [cwebber2]
... the other item this week that was important was we got a good list of issues from the i18n working group
17:28:58 [sandro]
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues?q=label%3Ai18n+is%3Aclosed
17:29:22 [sandro]
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=label%3Ai18n%20
17:29:25 [cwebber2]
... most of these were addressed by James, who did an omnibus pull request over the weekend, he can't be with us this time around, but what we have is a number of items about i18n in activitystreams
17:29:37 [eprodrom]
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20label%3Ai18n%20
17:29:46 [cwebber2]
... thanks a lot to rhiaro for fagging the i18n ones
17:29:52 [cwebber2]
er
17:29:57 [cwebber2]
... thanks a lot to rhiaro for flagging the i18n ones
17:30:05 [rhiaro]
I didn't label them, I guess Richard did
17:30:16 [cwebber2]
... second was using particular normative references
17:30:23 [cwebber2]
... we switched rfc??? to ????
17:30:48 [cwebber2]
... and RFC<etc> to <etc>
17:31:20 [cwebber2]
... there was a second class about how to do things like identifying direction and language of a document
17:31:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
can review all those at https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/commits/master
17:31:34 [cwebber2]
... so I think none of these will be controvercial
17:31:49 [eprodrom]
q?
17:32:00 [eprodrom]
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/341
17:32:41 [cwebber2]
... the one normative recommendation was that if there was not a way to identify the default language for a document that we recommend that implementers use the named map / content map / ** map properties rather than their default version
17:32:45 [eprodrom]
{"name": "Evan Prodromou"}
17:32:58 [eprodrom]
{"nameMap": {"en": "Evan Prodromou"}}
17:33:02 [cwebber2]
... so instead of having {"name": "Evan Prodromou"} we'd have {"nameMap": {"en": "Evan Prodromou"}}
17:33:28 [cwebber2]
... we had originally typed out nameMap / summaryMap / etc to have multiple translations for a property
17:33:50 [cwebber2]
... it was recommended that if we could not show the translations? for a document, we should use these by default
17:34:01 [eprodrom]
{"@context": {"@language": "en"}}
17:34:01 [cwebber2]
... it is possible to set the default language for a json-ld document
17:34:11 [cwebber2]
... so you specify the language in the context
17:34:34 [eprodrom]
{"nameMap": {"en": "Evan Prodromou"}}
17:34:37 [sandro]
q?
17:34:37 [cwebber2]
... james noted that there are some implmeentations that will not be using the json-ld structure, and so he recommended that we use the longer mechanisms
17:34:47 [cwebber2]
... he actually had text that said which we should use the map version
17:35:10 [cwebber2]
... my feeling is that these map versions... that was a normative change, deprecated properties replaced them with these map ones
17:35:23 [cwebber2]
... I think that instead we should suggest we should use the default language mechanism
17:35:24 [cwebber2]
q+
17:35:38 [cwebber2]
... so I removed that normative change and I'd like to get some guidance
17:35:44 [sandro]
q+
17:35:45 [cwebber2]
... so we have a case where the editors are not in agreement
17:35:47 [tantek]
q?
17:35:58 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:36:20 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: A question for Evan - are you suggesting we use the json-ld style of content mapping?
17:36:24 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: for default language?
17:36:34 [rhiaro]
... That is the way you set the dfeault language for AS2 documents, we already do
17:36:52 [rhiaro]
... Thee question is should we make it a SHOULD to use the nameMap, contentMap, summaryMap, descriptionMap
17:37:04 [rhiaro]
... The reason we would do that is for implementation that refuses to look in that context for the default language
17:37:25 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I don't have a strong opinion. I think that it's not a bad thing or very hard even if you're not using a json-ld processor to look in that context
17:37:32 [rhiaro]
... Assuming that you're not using.... I don't have a strong opinion
17:37:36 [tantek]
q?
17:37:39 [tantek]
ack cwebber2
17:37:43 [tantek]
ack cwebber
17:37:45 [cwebber2]
q-
17:37:51 [tantek]
ack sandro
17:37:58 [cwebber2]
scribenick: cwebber2
17:38:13 [cwebber2]
sandro: as clarification eprodrom, you say we already have the language thing, but that's a recent patch, right?
17:38:19 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: well it's inherit in json-ld
17:38:26 [cwebber2]
sandro: but it's never mentioned for activitystreams
17:38:47 [cwebber2]
... so I agree with the essence of your proposal, I think suggesting everyone look at the map versions of properties is too painful
17:39:03 [cwebber2]
... but I wonder if we can't do the @context language without the json-ld caveat
17:39:34 [cwebber2]
... and suggest that everyone SHOULD provide a @context language, and every reader MUST check the @context language
17:39:52 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so we recommend that people use the @(context: )language?
17:39:56 [cwebber2]
sandro: yes
17:40:11 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I thiiink that that makes sense, but some examples will need to change
17:40:28 [cwebber2]
sandro: yeah, in the real world that may be a change, but
17:40:30 [cwebber2]
q+
17:40:48 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: that could be a search and replace I think, it's just a question of do we want to have happen
17:40:57 [eprodrom]
"unk"
17:40:59 [tantek]
q?
17:41:46 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: another possibility is that if we use a language tag which means unknown, that could be somethign we use here to specify that if there is not a language tag, assume it's UND (undetermined)
17:41:56 [cwebber2]
sandro: then we wouldn't need to change the examples
17:42:04 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: we should probably change the examples anyway
17:42:07 [cwebber2]
sandro: yeah
17:42:20 [rhiaro]
Do we also need to alias @language to language to match everything else too?
17:42:27 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: it's nice to have it slim, but now we're making it a bit more complicated
17:42:41 [cwebber2]
... and I think that's okay
17:42:59 [eprodrom]
"language"
17:43:02 [rhiaro]
q+
17:43:15 [cwebber2]
... the other option is to include a first class property
17:43:24 [sandro]
q?
17:43:27 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:44:04 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I think I'm all for the suggestion that we make it a SHOULD when you know the language and we also say the implementations must look at @context to look for it. It's not too tough to look there even if you're not using json-ld
17:44:44 [rhiaro]
... But I'm not sure that we should change every example in the activitystreams doc to include an @context with the language property, the reason being that there's a classic problem where people start wanting to provide a language with content they don't know, and suddenly you have a bunch of content in another language tagged as English because the programmer was lazy
17:44:57 [rhiaro]
... I think it's okay ot have some examples int here that might reflect that user submitted content is probably unknown in most cases
17:45:01 [sandro]
+1 cwebber2 important to avoid giving @language when system doesn't know it!
17:45:12 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Interesting point
17:45:19 [tantek]
I agree with cwebber2 about not forcing a default language for exactly that point
17:45:23 [tantek]
q?
17:45:28 [tantek]
ack cwebber
17:45:30 [sandro]
q- cwebber2
17:45:34 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
17:45:58 [tantek]
q?
17:46:01 [cwebber2]
I have to reboot
17:46:03 [cwebber2]
my phone
17:46:08 [tantek]
hold on
17:46:08 [eprodrom]
If you are typing, please mute!
17:46:38 [tantek]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:46:59 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: I was thinking we can just alias @language to language and put the language tag on objects
17:47:11 [rhiaro]
sandro: The @language doesn't go on objects it goes in the context so that doesn't work
17:47:21 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'm not sure how that would work
17:47:26 [tantek]
q?
17:47:43 [rhiaro]
sandro: It looks like in json-ld it can go in the ocntent if you're using the expanded form, but since you're using the compacted form there's no place for the language to go so it has to go in the context
17:47:58 [rhiaro]
tantek: sounds like there's more non-trivial discussion, so we can move on to other points. Do we have a github issue for this?
17:48:05 [eprodrom]
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/341
17:48:10 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: yes
17:48:39 [rhiaro]
... There is the question, I'm not exactly sure what happens next, but I think we push back publication. When do we make our decisions here and then go forward? Or do we fix after we publish?
17:49:03 [rhiaro]
tantek: the first part is there is non-trivial discusison, we're not going to get an answer on this telecon. We allow people to continue iterating on that issue, specifically cwebber2, rhiaro and sandro to chip in more
17:49:18 [rhiaro]
... Second is about publishing. Either we decide to publish with this issue outstanding in which case we may want to call it out explicitly in the draft
17:49:33 [rhiaro]
... Alternatively, up to you evan, is to wait to publish to resolve this issue first, then incorporate
17:49:57 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: At this point we can publish a working draft that *evan is cutting out*
17:50:27 [rhiaro]
... James needs to be here?
17:50:35 [tantek]
something about not wanting to override James
17:50:42 [tantek]
without James in the room
17:50:52 [eprodrom]
I'd like to publish a WD and then look at CR next week
17:50:52 [rhiaro]
sandro: I think I heard Evan say he wasn't comfortable overriding one of James's decisions without James, so sounds like we need to wait until next week until James is back online and we can get his attention
17:50:59 [rhiaro]
... Sounds like wer'e close to a consensus
17:51:23 [rhiaro]
tantek: sounds like you had a similar approach, just figuring out syntax
17:51:34 [rhiaro]
sandro: No question what the syntax is. I don't believe there's a design decision
17:51:51 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: We've got two feet on the ground and it's which we want to lean on. I'd like to publish what we have as an ED as a WD, and that will make it easier for review
17:52:01 [rhiaro]
... With James's changes and the new at risk language
17:52:08 [rhiaro]
... Just won't have the normative change to recommend using the map properties
17:52:18 [rhiaro]
tantek: Can we call that out as an issue inline
17:52:20 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Yep
17:53:01 [tantek]
PROPOSED: publish AS2 documents as WDs with calling out issue https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/341 inline in the appropriate place in the document(s)
17:53:14 [rhiaro]
... Perfect
17:53:19 [eprodrom]
+1
17:53:22 [annbass]
+1
17:53:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
17:53:23 [wilkie]
+1
17:53:25 [rhiaro]
+1
17:53:30 [KevinMarks]
+1
17:53:46 [akuckartz]
+1
17:53:54 [sandro]
+1
17:53:58 [aaronpk]
+1
17:53:59 [cwebber2]
+1
17:54:09 [tantek]
RESOLVED: publish AS2 documents as WDs with calling out issue https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/341 inline in the appropriate place in the document(s)
17:54:25 [rhiaro]
tantek: is that the end of the AS2 update?
17:54:46 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: tracking document status
17:54:47 [tantek]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/DocumentStatus
17:54:58 [rhiaro]
... Any editors like to provide updated status?
17:55:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
q+
17:55:24 [tantek]
ack ben_thatmustbeme
17:55:44 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: I was wondering .??. jf2 are we changing publish dates again?
17:55:53 [tantek]
q?
17:55:53 [rhiaro]
... sandro could I have an update of what are we publishing and when?
17:56:11 [rhiaro]
sandro: So we could try to go ahead with jf2 by itself. I had been waiting for other things, but as you've heard the other things have been snagged on other issues
17:56:21 [rhiaro]
... I guess we might as well go ahead and do jf2 by itself
17:56:25 [rhiaro]
... Not sure of the status with post type discovery
17:56:43 [rhiaro]
tantek: I've had trouble with pubrules checks so I have a draft but it's not passing pubrules, so that has additional work
17:56:52 [rhiaro]
... I don't know if I can get those resolved in the next hour, but I don't want it to hold anything up
17:57:02 [rhiaro]
... But if there's a desire to cluster publishing.. sandro?
17:57:09 [rhiaro]
sandro: I think clustering is nice but not particularly important
17:57:32 [rhiaro]
tantek: we're waiting on AS2 and micropub for WD, not going to CR today, need to address the comments for the things that came up during review
17:57:38 [rhiaro]
... We don't have a new estimated date of CR for those, right?
17:57:58 [rhiaro]
sandro: assuming james and i18n hopefully we'll do AS2 next week, but I don't know how confident to be of that
17:58:01 [rhiaro]
... I think we will
17:58:18 [rhiaro]
tantek: similarly the accessibility issue with micropub if we get that resolved we could do next week for that too?
17:58:27 [rhiaro]
sandro: is the micropub issue blocking CR?
17:58:33 [rhiaro]
tantek: aaron?
17:58:39 [rhiaro]
... If it's a normative change that blocks CR
17:58:49 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: the accessibility issue asks for examples
17:58:57 [rhiaro]
... So I belive that doesn't intend to block CR
17:59:12 [rhiaro]
tantek: to be fair if their request is for examples of something the spec doesn't support, and the spec requires a change, that's a CR blocker
17:59:16 [rhiaro]
... We know of an outstanding normative change
17:59:28 [rhiaro]
... Can you provide an example without altering the featureset of micropub?
17:59:37 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I guess technically no because it relies on microformats specifying how to do that
18:00:05 [rhiaro]
KevinMarks: there is a way to ?? content and that will just ???? markup
18:00:25 [rhiaro]
... The issue is do we need to define a more detailed set of properties for photo posts
18:00:39 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I do think it needs to be handled explicitly
18:00:44 [rhiaro]
... alttext shouldn't be mixed with the content of a post
18:00:47 [rhiaro]
KevinMarks: The content is HTML
18:00:58 [KevinMarks]
let me type that
18:01:04 [rhiaro]
tantek: if the editor thinks this should be handled normatively that means it's a normative change
18:01:23 [rhiaro]
... That's potentially possible for next week. aaron do you think you can do the resolution of this and any dependant issues by next week?
18:01:31 [KevinMarks]
micropub parsing via microfomats can bring in the source html of posts via e-content
18:01:32 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I think so, as long as we can make quick progress on the microformats side
18:01:41 [rhiaro]
tantek: Sounds like we may be abel to push everything forward a week
18:01:44 [rhiaro]
... Okay by me for PTD
18:01:51 [rhiaro]
... Ben is that okay for you for jf2?
18:01:54 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: Fine waiting a week
18:02:06 [KevinMarks]
that will preserve alt, figure, longdesc, aria any accessible html markup
18:02:15 [rhiaro]
tantek: new goal is to get everything in place for next week
18:02:24 [rhiaro]
... Please resolve any normative issues in github ahead of time
18:02:30 [rhiaro]
... That leaves SWP and AP
18:02:38 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> No change on SWP
18:02:58 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I've been pushing pretty hard on getting an implementation out there and am pretty close to giving a usable draft
18:03:03 [KevinMarks]
the specfic issue will be for parsing photo explicitly, and if we need to define a new object for those to hold richer metadata in parsed form
18:03:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro, i'm assuming you want me to rewrite those staged version with the new date (7/19)
18:03:07 [rhiaro]
tantek: by next week?
18:03:13 [cwebber2]
tantek, sure
18:03:18 [cwebber2]
tantek, I hope so :)
18:03:39 [rhiaro]
tantek: We resolved last week to accept LDN as ED
18:03:39 [tantek]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/DocumentStatus
18:04:25 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> We've got issues we're working through, and would like to go to FPWD soon, next week
18:04:31 [rhiaro]
tantek: Any more urgent issue?
18:04:56 [annbass]
excellent job(s) everyone -- kudos!
18:05:03 [rhiaro]
... Lots of work for everyone to do for next week
18:05:12 [rhiaro]
... If you're interested in changes happening, please review the changes as they're happening
18:05:17 [rhiaro]
... Talk next week
18:05:21 [akuckartz]
thanks and bye!
18:05:26 [wilkie]
thanks all!
18:05:28 [annbass]
thanks tantek, cwebber2 and rhiaro
18:05:30 [wilkie]
rhiaro++
18:05:32 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 211 karma
18:05:32 [wilkie]
cwebber2++
18:05:33 [tantek]
rhiaro++
18:05:34 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 64 karma
18:05:35 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 212 karma
18:05:36 [tantek]
cwebber2++
18:05:38 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 65 karma
18:06:14 [cwebber2]
:)
18:07:16 [tantek]
oops
18:07:24 [tantek]
trackbot, end meeting
18:07:24 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:07:24 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been sandro, aaronpk, rhiaro, akuckartz, cwebber, csarven, wilkie, eprodrom, annbass, ben_thatmustbeme, KevinMarks, tantek
18:07:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:07:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/12-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:07:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:07:33 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items