IRC log of social on 2016-11-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:02:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:02:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:02:46 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:02:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:02:48 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:02:48 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
17:02:49 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:02:49 [trackbot]
Date: 01 November 2016
17:03:00 [aaronpk]
17:03:03 [tantek]
17:03:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:03:30 [annbass]
17:03:32 [julien]
julien has joined #social
17:04:07 [rhiaro]
17:04:45 [tantek]
Zakim, who is here?
17:04:45 [Zakim]
Present: aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro
17:04:47 [Zakim]
On IRC I see julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, KevinMarks, tantek, annbass, jasnell_, sandro, shepazu, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, wseltzer, strugee, oshepherd, cwebber2, wilkie, raucao,
17:04:47 [Zakim]
... csarven, pdurbin, bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, trackbot
17:04:53 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:05:11 [sandro]
17:05:30 [annbass]
17:05:32 [tantek]
Zakim, who is here?
17:05:32 [Zakim]
Present: aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro, sandro
17:05:33 [Zakim]
On IRC I see julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, KevinMarks, tantek, annbass, jasnell_, sandro, shepazu, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, wseltzer, strugee, oshepherd, cwebber2, wilkie, raucao,
17:05:33 [Zakim]
... csarven, pdurbin, bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, trackbot
17:05:39 [wilkie]
17:05:41 [cwebber2]
17:06:01 [tantek]
17:06:12 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Upcoming f2f
17:06:25 [rhiaro]
tantek: 6 people signed up
17:06:27 [rhiaro]
... and some remote
17:06:29 [rhiaro]
... not too bad
17:06:30 [julien]
I am trying to call in
17:06:32 [rhiaro]
... could use more
17:06:41 [cwebber2]
oh yeah sorry
17:06:42 [rhiaro]
... cwebber2, add yourself if you're coming
17:06:42 [cwebber2]
I'll be there
17:06:42 [tantek]
17:06:44 [Loqi]
Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting at MIT (F2F8)
17:07:04 [annbass]
Regrets for F2F
17:07:16 [tantek]
17:07:17 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: approval of minutes 2016-10-25
17:07:26 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
17:07:38 [tantek]
PROPOSED: approve minutes
17:07:43 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
17:07:56 [sandro]
17:08:00 [aaronpk]
17:08:00 [tantek]
17:08:02 [julien]
17:08:09 [wilkie]
17:08:10 [annbass]
17:08:21 [tantek]
RESOLVED: approve minutes
17:08:41 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: CR status for LDN
17:08:57 [rhiaro]
17:09:12 [KevinMarks2]
KevinMarks2 has joined #social
17:09:20 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: Approved and published
17:09:27 [rhiaro]
tantek: congrats, fastest to publication from FPWD
17:09:33 [rhiaro]
... Announcement should go out soon
17:09:39 [rhiaro]
... Spread the word
17:09:44 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Webmention PR status
17:10:02 [Loqi]
Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-11-01]]
17:10:03 [Loqi]
Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/ActivityPub wide review]]
17:10:03 [Loqi]
Cwebber2 made 7 edits to [[Socialwg/ActivityPub CR Transition Request]]
17:10:03 [Loqi]
Cwebber2 made 6 edits to [[Socialwg/ActivityPub wide review]]
17:10:03 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: Approved yesterday, published today
17:10:04 [Loqi]
Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-11-17]]
17:10:14 [rhiaro]
tantek: this is our first PR, congrats
17:10:25 [annbass]
17:10:27 [rhiaro]
... The announcement goes out, to the AC for a vote
17:10:28 [Loqi]
17:10:42 [rhiaro]
... Composed of w3c members and assuming a sufficient number of them say yes, and no formal objections, it proceeds to rec
17:10:46 [rhiaro]
... I forget how many weeks they have to vote
17:10:49 [rhiaro]
... I think it's 4
17:10:59 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
17:11:08 [rhiaro]
... In particular I want to encourage everyone who has yet to file an implementation report to please do so
17:11:15 [rhiaro]
... And for LDN as well
17:11:23 [rhiaro]
... Instructions are in the drafts
17:11:35 [rhiaro]
... But for the PR, now it's going to every member of W3C that they need to vote on
17:11:43 [rhiaro]
... one of the things they look at is who is implementing it, how many there are
17:11:52 [rhiaro]
... These might be people who have never heard of it before
17:12:02 [rhiaro]
... So the more implementations we have, the more it looks like ther'es a community, it looks real
17:12:03 [tantek]
17:12:34 [rhiaro]
... I would recommend that our other CRs look at that and see if they can use the pattern in terms of providing a summary
17:12:41 [rhiaro]
... aaronpk, any comments?
17:12:48 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I don't think I have anything to add
17:12:55 [sandro]
FWIW -- LDN FPWD -> CR in 98 days (aka 3.2 months aka 14 weeks)
17:13:10 [rhiaro]
tantek: It appears that there are more implementation reports than there are in the summary, correct? Is it behind?
17:13:20 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I think the summary is up to date
17:13:29 [rhiaro]
... there are more things in that folder than are in the summary, but they're not all reports
17:13:37 [rhiaro]
tantek: I was seeing ten implementation reports
17:13:42 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: yeah there are ten in the summary and in the folder
17:13:52 [tantek]
17:14:04 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: AS2 CR-> PR status
17:14:06 [tantek]
zakim, who is here?
17:14:06 [Zakim]
Present: aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro, sandro, wilkie, cwebber, julien
17:14:07 [wilkie]
evan sent regrets
17:14:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see KevinMarks, julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, tantek, annbass, jasnell_, sandro, shepazu, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, wseltzer, strugee, oshepherd, cwebber2, wilkie, raucao,
17:14:08 [Zakim]
... csarven, pdurbin, bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, trackbot
17:14:20 [rhiaro]
tantek: Any sign of Evan or James?
17:14:20 [aaronpk]
tantek disappeared
17:14:27 [aaronpk]
17:14:29 [rhiaro]
... okay, skip until james shows up
17:14:37 [aaronpk]
maybe it was on my end then
17:14:41 [rhiaro]
17:14:48 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: We're ready!
17:14:51 [rhiaro]
... So let me link...
17:14:53 [cwebber2]
17:14:58 [rhiaro]
... This is the transition req document
17:15:00 [sandro]
? down
17:15:12 [rhiaro]
... The current Ed which we had discussed releasing a new WD of, with a changelog
17:15:13 [cwebber2]
17:15:45 [rhiaro]
... I have the links to the implementation report and test suite, but they're not in place. I just registered the domain. They're is not actually anything there, I was told I need to get the stubs in there
17:15:55 [rhiaro]
sandro: but there will be at least a landing page?
17:15:59 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: There will be yeah
17:16:08 [rhiaro]
... No problem
17:16:16 [rhiaro]
... I just got that in place last night
17:16:32 [cwebber2]
17:16:42 [rhiaro]
... In terms of wide review, I've collected in addition to issues the offlist feedback Iv'e had
17:16:56 [rhiaro]
... That I've requested I can make it public, there are very large amounts of detailed feedback here from people outside the group
17:17:04 [rhiaro]
... I think this is in a good state
17:17:16 [rhiaro]
... So I'll hadn off to tantek to ask what the next step is and if we can request a vote to move to CR
17:17:22 [rhiaro]
tantek: Open issues?
17:17:27 [cwebber2]
17:17:27 [rhiaro]
... I know you've been working really hard on those
17:17:39 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: The only issues left open are all editorial, except for one which is postponed that we talked about last week
17:17:44 [rhiaro]
... one is get AP terms in the AS2 namespace
17:17:48 [rhiaro]
... and the test suite one
17:17:52 [rhiaro]
... Everything else in there is editorial
17:17:59 [rhiaro]
sandro: the non-editorial ones are todo list items?
17:18:02 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: Right
17:18:17 [rhiaro]
tantek: *sounds of thinking*
17:18:28 [rhiaro]
... Having links in the draft should satisfy the test suite and reporting section..
17:18:38 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I'll close the issue then
17:18:51 [rhiaro]
tantek: I believe that's covered, not an issue against the draft
17:19:09 [annbass]
(rhiaro's scribing makes me smile)
17:19:17 [rhiaro]
... The AP terms and AS2 context, I'm not entirely sure what that needs
17:19:24 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: I took that as a todo, still haven't done it, will do
17:19:27 [tantek]
17:19:38 [rhiaro]
17:19:51 [rhiaro]
sandro: as extensions to AS2?
17:20:01 [Loqi]
Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-11-17]]
17:20:02 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: rhiaro and I need to work on making sure that happens
17:20:14 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: I'm on it, just haven't done it yet
17:20:41 [rhiaro]
tantek: if you want to add that to the CR transition request as something that we'll call out so ralph can see we're taking care of it
17:20:51 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> I'd hope to have that done before the transition call, but yeah
17:21:28 [rhiaro]
tantek: if we can get to CR before the f2f that would be great
17:21:46 [rhiaro]
... This is awesome, as far as I can tell you've checked off all the itmes
17:21:48 [rhiaro]
... Anyone else?
17:21:48 [tantek]
17:22:21 [tantek]
PROPOSED: transition ActivityPub draft at to CR
17:22:26 [cwebber2]
17:22:29 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1 :D
17:22:34 [sandro]
17:22:36 [annbass]
17:22:45 [wilkie]
17:22:46 [aaronpk]
17:22:51 [rhiaro]
I note that csarven added a +1 to this last week on the wiki
17:23:03 [annbass]
Indeed, kudos to cwebber2
17:23:06 [rhiaro]
tantek: you've had more last minute issues than any other spec we've seen chris, so that's a lot of hard work, well done
17:23:23 [sandro]
csarven: +1 by proxy
17:23:24 [tantek]
RESOLVED: transition ActivityPub draft at to CR
17:23:31 [cwebber2]
17:23:34 [annbass]
17:23:46 [rhiaro]
tantek: rhiaro, setup a transition call, let's make this happen
17:23:53 [rhiaro]
... I don't see any issues with the call based on our experience to date
17:24:04 [cwebber2]
17:24:12 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: another happy bit of news is we had someone external email me and plan to do an implementation and even put it on the site of the thing they're working on
17:24:19 [rhiaro]
... a federated hackernews/reddit alternative
17:24:20 [annbass]
That's neat!
17:24:35 [annbass]
17:24:36 [cwebber2]
17:24:48 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: PubSub WD->CR status
17:24:53 [rhiaro]
tantek: julien?
17:25:10 [tantek]
17:25:14 [rhiaro]
julien: there are a lot of open issues, we've discussed and closed
17:25:20 [rhiaro]
... The naming issue is still bothering me. I don't know what to do here.
17:25:23 [rhiaro]
tantek: let's take that last
17:25:28 [rhiaro]
... Any other issues you might want our help with?
17:25:48 [rhiaro]
julien: Looks like there are 23 open issues. Are there any that you believe you could make faster pgoress on with input from the group?
17:25:52 [rhiaro]
17:25:56 [cwebber2]
ohhh shoot
17:26:16 [rhiaro]
julien: fat pings vs thin pings... I was very confused by the turn of the discussion
17:26:19 [rhiaro]
... I thought fat pings were the way to go
17:26:22 [tantek]
17:26:23 [rhiaro]
... but obviously not everyone thinks that
17:26:28 [cwebber2]
+q for after PuSH talk to vote on new WD of AP
17:26:28 [rhiaro]
... two issues around it
17:26:32 [rhiaro]
... also 27
17:26:39 [tantek]
17:26:52 [tantek]
17:26:59 [tantek]
ack cwebber
17:26:59 [Zakim]
cwebber, you wanted to discuss after PuSH talk to vote on new WD of AP
17:27:34 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: back to AP briefly
17:27:52 [rhiaro]
PROPOSAL: publish existing ED as a WD immediately
17:27:58 [cwebber2]
17:28:09 [tantek]
PROPOSED: as a new WD of ActivityPub
17:28:12 [cwebber2]
17:28:26 [aaronpk]
17:28:27 [tantek]
17:28:32 [rhiaro]
17:28:42 [annbass]
17:28:51 [wilkie]
17:28:58 [tantek]
RESOLVED: publish as a new WD of ActivityPub
17:29:14 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: back to PubSubSomething
17:29:27 [rhiaro]
tantek: back to fat pings and thin pings
17:29:31 [rhiaro]
... what's required and what's not
17:29:31 [tantek]
17:29:40 [aaronpk]
17:29:52 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: This is about issue 27, I created this to try to ask for help finding documentation on current behaviour of fat pings
17:30:02 [Loqi]
Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/ActivityPub CR Transition Request]]
17:30:02 [rhiaro]
... In my research I was not able to find much about the actual payload that's sent in fat pings
17:30:09 [rhiaro]
... We have some links now
17:30:13 [csarven]
Sorry.. was AFK. +1 :)
17:30:14 [rhiaro]
... But I'm still not super happy with the state of this
17:30:32 [rhiaro]
... The main goal of this thread was if the spec is going to recommend or rquire that fat pings are used it absolutely must say what the payload is
17:30:36 [rhiaro]
... Otherwise it's not really useful as a suggestion
17:30:51 [rhiaro]
... So I was hoping to collect examples of what people are sending in order to turn that into the recommendation of what the content is
17:31:20 [rhiaro]
julien: for wordpress and google and superfeedr, we tried to point to the PuSH spec which we thought was giving a good description of the contents of the payload
17:31:24 [rhiaro]
... being a diff of what was being subscribed to
17:31:29 [rhiaro]
... this needs clarification in the spec now
17:31:43 [rhiaro]
... the hub MUST send fat pings, but we cna't prevent the subscriber from ignoring that fat ping
17:31:47 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: that makes sense
17:31:58 [rhiaro]
... the other source of confusion is the spec describes this vague idea of diffingw ithout actually saying it works
17:32:04 [rhiaro]
julien: that's a problem I've had for a long time
17:32:11 [rhiaro]
... diffing has different meanings based on the content type
17:32:23 [rhiaro]
... you could diff on the entry level... what does it mean for a json document?
17:32:31 [rhiaro]
... I'm not sure what's the right approach here
17:32:37 [rhiaro]
... I'd rather diff based on the capabilities of the content type
17:32:42 [rhiaro]
... rather than a dumb diff on the text level
17:32:52 [rhiaro]
... but if we have to do that to make the spec forward, but I'd rather not
17:33:03 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: that's why I wanted to collect examples of what is done with rss, atom, html, json, and looking at actual examples
17:33:07 [rhiaro]
... but I couldn't find any
17:33:13 [rhiaro]
... I totally agree having content type specific idffing is way more useful
17:33:17 [rhiaro]
... but I couldn't find what is being done right now
17:33:19 [sandro]
17:33:46 [rhiaro]
julien: We talk about diffing, maybe there's room for saying that rather than diffing by default the hub sends the full content of the resource and the client has to find what is new or different in the payload
17:33:52 [rhiaro]
... that would basically mean the hub doesn't have to deal with diffing
17:34:01 [rhiaro]
... the subscriber has to find a way to identify what's missing, new or updated
17:34:05 [tantek]
17:34:12 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I think that's an acceptable solution
17:34:19 [wilkie]
diff'ing as an extension
17:34:28 [rhiaro]
sandro: I'm a big fan of ... there are conflicting things between simplicity and efficiency
17:34:29 [tantek]
ack sandro
17:34:43 [rhiaro]
... simplicity would be just send the new content, but in some cases that would be painfully inefficient and we'd wish we could send a diff
17:34:53 [rhiaro]
... In terms of technology for diffs, within the general http stack I think that's mostly under patch, right?
17:35:08 [rhiaro]
... I dont' know how much the PATCH verb has caught on. I've seen a couple of media types, two different json patch media types
17:35:14 [rhiaro]
... that seems like th eright... however people are using PATCH
17:35:26 [rhiaro]
... if you're using json-patch to patch json,t hen presumably you should be sending that as your fat ping
17:35:28 [rhiaro]
... on a json resource
17:35:45 [rhiaro]
julien: then the spec would just leave ?? the right diffing mechanism to each content type
17:35:56 [rhiaro]
... if you're using json you us ejson-patch, if your'e using rss/atom then you do per entry
17:36:05 [tantek]
good question re: PATCH (how much has it caught on?). IMO from a newish W3C process perspective, PATCH has been insufficiently incubated (not enough actual prototyping to show that it's worth depending on).
17:36:08 [rhiaro]
sandro: the problem with that is that there isn't one... there are at least 2 different json-patch protocols
17:36:16 [rhiaro]
julien: it's worse for images, how do you diff an image?
17:36:47 [rhiaro]
sandro: I think if you don't have a good diff mechanism... you could do it, complicates the protocol maybe, when you're sending a patch the way you're supposed to know what media type ot use is you get an accept-patch header earlier in the process
17:37:07 [rhiaro]
... if we can fit that in the hub could, if it gets an accept patch, and it knows how to do that media type,then it MAY or SHOULD send patches using that
17:37:09 [tantek]
q+ to note need to separate what we *could* do with PubSub, vs. what documenting (specing) what we believe implementations *already do*
17:37:12 [rhiaro]
... if it doesn't know that, it sends the whole content
17:37:17 [rhiaro]
julien: that's exactly how superfeedr works
17:37:25 [rhiaro]
... at the hub level we look at the accept header upon subscription
17:37:36 [rhiaro]
... if they accept json we do the conversion form rss to json
17:37:43 [rhiaro]
... and when the content updates we send the json rather than rss
17:37:55 [rhiaro]
... this could work for me, saying what the subscriber provides defines what the hub sends in the notification
17:38:05 [rhiaro]
... and we need a way for the hub to tell the subscriber that it doesn't understand the accep theader
17:38:15 [sandro] ACCEPT-PATCH
17:38:21 [rhiaro]
sandro: There is this accept patch header in rfc
17:38:37 [rhiaro]
... we have to see what the logic there is, along with the logic pubsub uses, and see if they can fit together
17:39:03 [rhiaro]
tantek: sounds like you and aaron were coming to some common understanding?
17:39:22 [rhiaro]
julien: I'll start working on the summary and then aaron we can iterate from there
17:39:27 [rhiaro]
tantek: sounds good
17:39:29 [tantek]
ack tantek
17:39:29 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to note need to separate what we *could* do with PubSub, vs. what documenting (specing) what we believe implementations *already do*
17:40:08 [rhiaro]
... I think it's good to consider how pubsub could do this in ideal conditions, maybe in the future. However for the purposes of what we need to scope and ship in this WG we need to limit ourselves to what we believe implementations already do and use that as a very strong constraint
17:40:39 [rhiaro]
... If there is a potentially better solution with diffing or patch or something which we don't know or we don't know of any implementations, that may be worth opening as a separate issue, as like an enhancement request, but not necessarily for this version of pubsub
17:40:49 [rhiaro]
... which I believe pretty strongly we need to constrain to what we have implementations doing today
17:41:02 [rhiaro]
... so we can get it through the w3c process
17:41:09 [rhiaro]
sandro: I agree that makes sense
17:41:28 [rhiaro]
... it may be that diffs and patch are all a straightforward obvious extesnion and the part we standardise here is always about sending the whole content
17:41:32 [rhiaro]
... I'm prefectly comfortable with that
17:41:41 [rhiaro]
... and efficeincy being an extension
17:41:56 [rhiaro]
tantek: we're not trying to shut down discussion, its' good for us to keep an open mind
17:41:58 [rhiaro]
... and yes, document it
17:42:18 [rhiaro]
... if it ends up that solidifies into an extension that we can tell people to start playing with, that's great, but it's a different scope and timeline than the pubsub spec itself
17:42:32 [rhiaro]
... we might even manage to publish an extension as a note, but I don't think I'd want that to delay the spec itself
17:42:36 [rhiaro]
... just my opinion
17:42:39 [tantek]
17:42:42 [rhiaro]
... not a chair statement
17:43:17 [rhiaro]
... Sounds like we have a good understanding of issues 27 and 35
17:43:37 [rhiaro]
... sandro, could you open that as an enhancement request issue
17:44:02 [rhiaro]
... julien if you could separate the optimal way form what implementations to today
17:44:06 [rhiaro]
julien: will do
17:44:11 [rhiaro]
tantek: what next?
17:44:33 [rhiaro]
julien: most of the other ones are either fixes that are obvious or clear decisions, eg. the algorithms in the signature
17:44:49 [rhiaro]
... I don't think there are other significant ones, but maybe someone will disagree... one oabout the verbs but I don't thin it's worth changing what we've done so far
17:44:52 [rhiaro]
... 28
17:44:57 [tantek]
17:45:04 [rhiaro]
... The current spec was not 'rest' enough
17:45:17 [rhiaro]
... we were using GET and POST in ways that did not necessarily abide by the rest philosophy
17:45:54 [tantek]
17:46:02 [rhiaro]
... I think the current spec is fine
17:46:11 [rhiaro]
... makes a reasonable distinction
17:46:34 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I agree no change is needed for that. Seems to be a slightly unusual use of a GET but not the end of the world, and it's what everyone does already
17:47:18 [rhiaro]
tantek: is there a security issue with potential misuse of get?
17:47:51 [rhiaro]
julien: one person also suggested that we use a signature mechanism for setting up subscription
17:47:58 [rhiaro]
... and I think that would solve security misuse of GET in that context
17:48:24 [rhiaro]
tantek: do you have a proposed resolution?
17:48:33 [rhiaro]
... I'm not hearing a lot of dispute
17:48:47 [rhiaro]
julien: what I"ll do is put a longer comment in the issue thread and maybe not close it right away, and ask for feedback
17:48:56 [rhiaro]
tantek: okay, we'll leave it open for now
17:49:13 [rhiaro]
... if it comes ot a point wher eyou're not making any progress but you feel like you have some consensus, then bring it back to the WG so we can close it and move forward
17:49:41 [rhiaro]
sandro: This is one of these cases where this comes up with a potentially breaking change. We're all tryign to do this without any breaking changes so that all existing implementatios remain conformant. If we have to do a breaking change we'll think long and hard about it. right?
17:49:55 [rhiaro]
julien: Definitely to try to maintain everything or at least provide only little change. This would be very significant
17:50:17 [rhiaro]
tantek: I tend to agree. I personally would need to see for a breaking change, a security flaw that would motivate the current implementations to update
17:50:21 [rhiaro]
... Anything short of that I'm not sure I would support
17:50:37 [rhiaro]
sandro: I'd be hesitant to do anything that would fork the community into people who are still using pre-w3c PuSH
17:50:46 [rhiaro]
... I want them to be on board without doing anything
17:51:18 [rhiaro]
tantek: maybe that's something we can resolve
17:51:23 [rhiaro]
sandro: I don't think we need to make a formal policy
17:51:26 [rhiaro]
tantek: okay
17:51:41 [rhiaro]
julien: and then... the naming.
17:51:56 [rhiaro]
aaronpk, you have twitter poll results in?
17:52:02 [tantek]
17:52:06 [aaronpk]
current twitter poll results:
17:52:27 [aaronpk]
PushCast is in the lead
17:52:32 [rhiaro]
I LOVE that hubbub got loads of vote
17:52:34 [rhiaro]
that was a joke
17:52:42 [rhiaro]
tantek: I don't really want to use twitter poll sfor this type of thing...
17:52:49 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: an interesting survey of people who are not us, not a deciding factor
17:53:10 [rhiaro]
sandro: one of the problems I have with pubsubhubbub as a name is the abbreviate of PuSH. This is not 'push' as a web developer understands it
17:53:21 [rhiaro]
... specifically server to client, which is not the webhook kind of thing that this is
17:53:31 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: that's true, and also server to phone, apple and google's push apis
17:53:41 [rhiaro]
sandro: push is all the way to the end user, not an internal node to node like pubsubhubbub is
17:53:52 [annbass]
Seems like a good point, from a 'novice' Point of view
17:53:53 [rhiaro]
tantek: I guess I always thought of what you're calling push as server push... I can see your poing
17:53:56 [rhiaro]
17:54:02 [rhiaro]
julien: this is just one of the problems with the naming
17:54:08 [annbass]
(That would be me... the novice)
17:54:12 [rhiaro]
... pubsub also has a lot of other meanings
17:54:23 [rhiaro]
... all of the names have been used before for something else
17:54:26 [sandro]
websub ?
17:54:30 [rhiaro]
... hard to find somehting both new and descriptvie
17:54:31 [tantek]
17:54:54 [rhiaro]
tantek: let me try to roll this back. We had a strong consensus to go with pubsub last time we discussed this, f2f in Lisbon
17:55:04 [cwebber2]
17:55:05 [aaronpk]
17:55:08 [rhiaro]
... to change that we're going to need new information that we did not come up with in the discussion
17:55:16 [rhiaro]
... We knew pubsub was generic backthen, we decided to go with it anyway
17:55:21 [cwebber2]
aw phone disconnected :(
17:55:32 [cwebber2]
ok, what I was going to say, I think we agreed on pubsub for the short name
17:55:33 [rhiaro]
... we knew that it was superior to pubsubhubbub in terms of pronunctiation, especially for non-native English speakers
17:55:41 [cwebber2]
for ids at least
17:55:41 [rhiaro]
totally, cwebber2
17:55:50 [rhiaro]
tantek: any actually new information?
17:56:05 [rhiaro]
sandro: I hadn't thought about the search problem when we had that discussion
17:56:07 [cwebber2]
personally I don't care if we leave it as pubsubhubbub... at least people know what that is
17:56:16 [rhiaro]
... like in regsitries, not just search engines, don't have smart search
17:56:28 [rhiaro]
julien: definitely, the name is taken everywehre
17:56:41 [rhiaro]
tantek: the web search arguement I'm not as worried about
17:56:48 [rhiaro]
... pubsubhubbub has a lot of history and uptake in the past so it's easier to find
17:57:06 [rhiaro]
... web search is a lagging indicator of uptake
17:57:09 [aaronpk]
17:57:11 [rhiaro]
sandro: the name pubsub is never going to be unambiguous
17:57:18 [cwebber2]
17:57:19 [rhiaro]
... in a respository or software directory
17:57:26 [rhiaro]
... eg. redis has a pubsub, their modules show up as well
17:57:44 [rhiaro]
tantek: so if it's already a problem why should we ..?
17:57:51 [rhiaro]
sandro: It's nice for us to steer clear
17:57:57 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> I have
17:58:04 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> I didn't think of the search/generic thing
17:58:06 [cwebber2]
I don't have strong opinions but
17:58:11 [rhiaro]
tantek: anyone else changed their mind since f2f?
17:58:11 [cwebber2]
I think pubsubhubbub is a fine choice
17:58:13 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I have
17:58:17 [cwebber2]
it has problems, but we have nothing better
17:58:29 [cwebber2]
and at least it has well known history
17:58:35 [aaronpk]
17:58:37 [cwebber2]
we can keep pubsub as w3c shortid
17:58:46 [aaronpk]
"Use shortname of pubsub for shortname for now"
17:58:52 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: In our meeting minutes we did specifically resolve to use pubsub as the short name for now
17:59:03 [rhiaro]
sandro: it's not like we talked about it a whole lot at the f2f
17:59:12 [cwebber2]
I'm also ok with pushcast
17:59:12 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> I definitely don't think we agreed to use it as main name, only shortname
17:59:21 [cwebber2]
my memory is only shortname too
17:59:22 [rhiaro]
tantek: My recollection was that we resolved on both
17:59:24 [rhiaro]
q+ different
17:59:25 [annbass]
Can we use pubsub, but w acronym different than 'PuSh'
17:59:34 [tantek]
17:59:42 [tantek]
q- different
17:59:45 [tantek]
q+ rhiaro
17:59:46 [rhiaro]
sandro: one middleground is the same way pubsubhubbu is abbreviated PuSH we could keep using pubsub as a convenient reference to pubsubhubbub
17:59:51 [aaronpk]
18:00:03 [rhiaro]
... but the full name is pubsubhubbub
18:00:09 [rhiaro]
... but we refer to it as pubsub for convienience
18:00:11 [annbass]
Approx the same as what I was suggesting
18:00:32 [rhiaro]
tantek: we could continue discussing
18:00:40 [rhiaro]
... The issue doesn't seem like a productive way to having this discusson
18:00:52 [rhiaro]
... Or we could open a wiki page that lists each of the serious proposals for a name, incluidng the original
18:00:54 [cwebber2]
18:00:56 [rhiaro]
... and people can document the pros and cons of each
18:01:08 [rhiaro]
... and that way we capture the current state of why any particular name is good or bad
18:01:16 [rhiaro]
... and also they could put a +1 or -1 and name next to any one
18:01:21 [annbass]
Would it be a public discussion? Or only us?
18:01:30 [sandro]
18:01:34 [annbass]
18:01:52 [tantek]
18:02:07 [rhiaro]
tantek: use this wiki page for this discussion
18:02:18 [cwebber2]
18:02:19 [rhiaro]
... reasonable?
18:02:20 [cwebber2]
sounds fine
18:02:22 [cwebber2]
18:02:45 [rhiaro]
... We should document this in case in the future namechange comes up again
18:02:45 [tantek]
18:02:48 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
18:03:08 [annbass]
If this isn't traditional push, then does that wiki name confuse things?
18:03:40 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: my recollection from the f2f is that we resolved only on the short name, and expected to change the spec name
18:03:57 [wilkie]
push is the old name
18:04:06 [tantek]
push is the old abbr
18:04:18 [rhiaro]
annbass: I think it's important not to bias the discussion, is calling the wiki page push going to confuse things?
18:04:41 [rhiaro]
tantek: push was the old short name
18:04:42 [tantek]
18:04:45 [annbass]
18:04:47 [tantek]
ack cwebber
18:05:00 [rhiaro]
cwebber2, you're cutting out
18:05:04 [cwebber2]
18:05:07 [cwebber2]
ok, I'll type on here
18:05:22 [cwebber2]
I think the wiki page is great, but naming also the ultimate bikeshed
18:05:27 [cwebber2]
I suggest everyone get their stuff on the wiki
18:05:32 [cwebber2]
and we don't spend more than another week on it
18:05:51 [rhiaro]
tantek: that's a perfectly reasonable proposal
18:05:58 [rhiaro]
... perhaps add as a comment on the issue and we can proceed from there
18:06:17 [rhiaro]
... is that the last thing?
18:06:23 [cwebber2]
last thing from me!
18:06:30 [rhiaro]
julien: Anyone else have pubsub issues?
18:06:41 [rhiaro]
18:07:01 [rhiaro]
18:07:10 [rhiaro]
tantek: test suite plans for pubsub
18:07:34 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I have a list of all of the componants to test and I have the framework now, website set up, will make progress on actually creating some of the tests
18:07:56 [rhiaro]
sandro: great
18:08:08 [rhiaro]
... julien, you understand aaron is working on it, have you been talking?
18:08:12 [rhiaro]
julien: we haven't been talking yet
18:08:19 [rhiaro]
tantek: is there a url?
18:08:24 [aaronpk]
18:08:38 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: best place to follow is the issues on this repo
18:08:45 [julien]
feel free to share the repo aaron
18:08:46 [rhiaro]
... If we rename the spec I'll get a new .rocks domain
18:08:54 [rhiaro]
sandro: do we somewhere have a list of implementations? at least hubs?
18:09:08 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: the only list I know of is on the indieweb wiki
18:09:16 [aaronpk]
18:09:27 [rhiaro]
tantek: julien?
18:09:34 [aaronpk]
18:09:36 [rhiaro]
julien: I know there was one on google code, that's gone... I'll try to find one
18:10:07 [rhiaro]
sandro: looks like 5 hubs, which is great
18:10:18 [rhiaro]
... just wanted to figure out if we'll be able tog et through CR quickly
18:10:22 [rhiaro]
tantek: tons of publishers right
18:10:32 [rhiaro]
... half dozen hubs, subscribers?
18:10:41 [rhiaro]
sandro: not sure about subscribers
18:10:48 [tantek]
18:11:00 [rhiaro]
tantek: is that subscribers?
18:11:02 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: uh yeah
18:11:13 [rhiaro]
tantek: I think one of those is defunct?
18:11:17 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: that's my fault
18:11:25 [rhiaro]
tantek: so 3 we know of for 0.4
18:11:29 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I'm sure there are tons more
18:11:37 [rhiaro]
sandro: publisher and subscriber are pretty easy
18:11:46 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> unless subscriber needs to do diffing :p
18:11:51 [rhiaro]
tantek: we'll have tests for all three
18:11:58 [rhiaro]
... Test suite is i development
18:12:03 [rhiaro]
... Is that good enough to link to from the draft?
18:12:21 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: if you want to link to something from the draft link to the .rocks domain, or wait until we finalise the name
18:12:38 [rhiaro]
tantek: I guess we just file an issue on the spec to link
18:12:46 [tantek]
18:12:46 [rhiaro]
... Any other issues about pubsub?
18:13:03 [rhiaro]
18:13:32 [rhiaro]
tantek: new WD with updated statuses?
18:13:35 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: yes
18:13:35 [tantek]
PROPOSED: published new WD of SWP with updated status of our drafts
18:13:38 [rhiaro]
18:13:44 [sandro]
18:13:45 [aaronpk]
18:13:52 [cwebber2]
18:13:52 [wilkie]
18:14:01 [annbass]
18:14:07 [tantek]
RESOLVED: publish new WD of SWP with updated status of our drafts
18:14:21 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Any other docs with updates?
18:14:50 [rhiaro]
tantek: next week we're meeting on the 8th, evan is chair, and all of our daylight savings should be gone by next week
18:14:56 [tantek]
18:15:16 [annbass]
Don't remind us
18:15:34 [rhiaro]
18:15:37 [rhiaro]
trackbot, end meeting
18:15:37 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:15:37 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro, sandro, wilkie, cwebber, julien
18:15:38 [annbass]
Kudos galore to rhiaro and Tantek!
18:15:40 [annbass]
18:15:45 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:15:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:15:46 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:15:46 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
18:15:49 [cwebber2]
18:15:49 [Loqi]
tantek has 48 karma in this channel (309 overall)
18:19:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
18:19:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:19:58 [rhiaro]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:19:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate rhiaro
18:24:56 [aaronpk]
the write-in votes have been fun
18:24:57 [Loqi]
[@jjooee] @aaronpk ◯ Subscrublishub
18:28:05 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
18:36:29 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
18:41:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:54:25 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
19:00:19 [KevinMarks2]
KevinMarks2 has joined #social
19:30:29 [Loqi]
[@DataG] Linked Data Notifications | W3C specification (
19:33:10 [csarven]
^^ Customers. ehh.. :P
19:34:05 [tantek]
20:17:29 [KjetilK_]
KjetilK_ has joined #social
20:33:48 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #social
20:33:57 [Loqi]
bye Zakim!
21:26:38 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
22:21:00 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
22:21:01 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
23:37:06 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
23:37:07 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
23:40:57 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
23:57:53 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
23:59:27 [tantek]
amy, sandro - do you know how we (chairs / staff) can make blog posts here: (as other WG chairs (including non-W3C-team people) seem to be able to) ?
23:59:32 [tantek]
23:59:46 [tantek]
!tell rhiaro,sandro do you know how we (chairs / staff) can make blog posts here: (as other WG chairs (including non-W3C-team people) seem to be able to) ?
23:59:46 [Loqi]
Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next