From W3C Wiki



Social Web Working Group Teleconference

10 Nov 2015

See also: IRC log


Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika
cwebber2, rhiaro, cwebber, rhiaro_


<tantek> ben_thatmustbeme: see

<ben_thatmustbeme> somehow i missed it

<ben_thatmustbeme> Rene sent regrets to the list i believe

<cwebber2> I can scribe

<cwebber2> I haven't in a while.

<eprodrom> Arnaud, can I ask a favor?

<eprodrom> Can you copy over those agenda items?

<cwebber2> I'll scribe

<eprodrom> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 10 November 2015

<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2

eprodrom: unfortunately I have limited connectivity, may be slow on IRC
... first item is to review/approve last week's minutes


eprodrom: I'd like to ask to review the minutes

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

cwebber2: +1

<tantek> +1

<wilkie> +1

<eprodrom> Proposal: approve minutes for 2015-11-03

eprodrom: any objections or -1, please say so now

<eprodrom> +1

eprodrom: I'd like to call this resolved
... and we're ready to move right along.
... one note about this week's agenda is that we had some agenda items from last week that did not get handled, so according to the FIFO procedure we're following, we have now moved them all to today's agenda?
... is that right Arnaud ?

Arnaud: reload your page and I think it should look reasonable

<akuckartz> audio arrives here somewhat broken

eprodrom: first item at top of page is simplified microformats 2 json format, JS2

<ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk is not here

<tantek> s/js2/jf2

eprodrom: I think we've discussed it, maybe we can review quickly

<Loqi> Alehors made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-11-10

<Loqi> Rhiaro made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-11-03-minutes

Arnaud: aaronpk is not here, we need to roll over

eprodrom: thanks for reminding me, we'll roll over to next week and address AS 2.0, is james on?

jasnell: I'm here

eprodrom: great let's work through our list
... a couple have come from elf, is elf on the call?

Arnaud: the first few are from last week because elf was not on

jasnell: I'm pulling it up now to look at the list

Arnaud: if elf is not on, we will skip again

<ben_thatmustbeme> The Blog object type probably rolls in to the extension vocab discussion

tantek: didn't see him dial in, don't see him on present list from Zakim

eprodrom: I'm not sure we need the proposer to be here to deal with these. should se address now or wait till elf is here? my feeling is to wait, but we may pass off for multiple meetings

tantek: if james has a succinct resolution to propose, otherwise I'm ok with postponing

jasnell: I have my own biased opinion, best to postpone

eprodrom: I think that makes sense
... so we wil pass over 221, 223, 208, that brings us to 52
... since this is a pretty contentious one, let's start with 52

jasnell: the short summary is that the AS spec currently defines an activity media type to identify docs
... the argument in the proposal is to provide the json-ld type

<melvster> FYI: documented responses on this issue


jasnell: with profile
... my proposal is to treat them as equal, that the AS2 type SHOULD be treated as equivalent
... generally +1'ed, with 2 dissenteres, on the thread

<tantek> but the "must" support is for "application/activity+json" right?

sandro: there's no requirement on server to say "I want activitystreams"

jasnell: to use json-ld media type you have to provide a profile parameter

sandro: you can't set one on a accept header

jasnell: you can but many implmenetations don't, it's an optional feature

sandro: the spec says you can't put it there, unless I'm wrong
... so unless I'm wrong, you can't ask for activitystreams from someone who doesn't know that media type

<wilkie> I believe you can put whatever you want in Accept, but it isn't standard

sandro: you shouldn't do this, but oif you really want to, you're in bad shape

jasnell: my proposed solution is to treat them as equivalent

<ben_thatmustbeme> as an implementor i don't really want to look for 2 possible types of rel-alternates

jasnell: with the AS type being a MUST, and equivalency is a SHOULD

<wilkie> as long as it is: ; something = "some string"

tantek: just to understand.. oh ok james may have just clarified my question

<wilkie> I like the compromise here

"application/activity+json" is a MUST, proposing a SHOULD for profile equivalence

<sandro> +1

tantek: is that right?

jasnell: yes


tantek: I can live with that

<tantek> +0 can live with that

eprodrom: azeroth?

<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to disagree with Sandro

<bigbluehat> azaroth: this is the updated HTTP/1.1 for that bit

azaroth: I disagree with sandro's interpretation... there's clearly a parameter in the media range, don't see why you couldn't fit in a parameter. If that is true though, that's something to keep in mind though



azaroth: if we can't do that, there's no point defining an equivalence

sandro: I think you're right
... I wouldn't have guessed that was media range

<sandro> "The media-range MAY include media type parameters that are applicable to that range. "

cwebber2: fwiw I think manu said they specifically added profiles for this purpose

<jasnell> the implementation support for content negotiation using parameters is sketchy at best

akuckartz: my problem is we've been discussing this for some time now
... in favor of media type and against profile
... all the time one argument was refuted... and once again we have a new argument for resolving this
... we created a wiki page to collect all arguments we have

<jasnell> there are popular implementations, for instance, that do not properly handle case sensitivity of comparison in parameter values

<jasnell> there are others that ignore parameters entirely

akuckartz: I suggest we provide new page with reasons for profile

<bigbluehat> the wiki page mentioned

akuckartz: collect for or against

<Loqi> Alehors made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-11-10

akuckartz: last argument was put forward against json-ld media type was problem of list of lists... even that is not against json-ld + profile

<ben_thatmustbeme> I honestly do not care what the media type is so long as it is unique, and preferrably only 1 media type

eprodrom: it sounds like you have a no-compromise idea, what you proposed as as a process is that there is a list of reasons for having a media type for activitystreams, and those will bve refuted one by one, and when th full list is completed, that's when the wg handles it

akuckartz: I'm not against it, I don't see the reasons in support of a new media type

<tantek> I don't think this is worth more time frankly, so much time has been wasted on such plumbing. Perhaps we can do a strawpoll to see where the group is overall?

akuckartz: I'm not against comporomise if necessary

eprodrom: could you sketch out to see what way you think the w3c should go forward? would it be just json-ld with profile?

<rhiaro_> and wait what about for people who aren't using json-ld..?

akuckartz: yes, then we could have just json-ld... it's more effort than to handle profile

<bigbluehat> there's nothing preventing the use of the application/ld+json media type being used by those who want to...the document could still use the AS2 @context value

eprodrom: what I'd like to do is to continue this discussion in middle of discussion

<wilkie> this was already about a compromise where people didn't want to see explicit json-ld

eprodrom: I for one would like to get it completed

<tantek> perhaps a straw poll A, B, C? of the options?

eprodrom: I'd like to get at est of the working group
... to ack myself, I'd like to ask james if we're dealing with multiple fallback media types, should we put application/json on that list
... do we support that in our list

jasnell: we don't have to
... that's defined as part of the rfc in support of the suffix
... I believe anything using the +json suffix automatically has application/json as fallback

eprodrom: oh great

jasnell: making sure right now
... yup
... *reads spec*

<wilkie> that certainly makes sense

jasnell: it's built into the rules

eprodrom: great we get that for free

<rhiaro_> scribenick: rhiaro

<wilkie> I'll scribe

<wilkie> oh ok!


<rhiaro_> cwebber: I think we're as close to consensus as we're going to get on this

<rhiaro_> ... It seems fromt he LD side we're going to be able to have a guarantee that things can be in an LD format

<rhiaro_> ... and having an alias to a profile is great

<rhiaro_> ... the microformats community doesn't necessarily want things to be JSON-LD which is fulfilled by this

<rhiaro_> ... Seems like we're in a good space of both sides being happy

<rhiaro_> ... In response to the previous questiona bout the justification, there has been a lot of conversation in thsi group who don't necessarily want to view things as LD

<rhiaro_> ... and want to have a fallback where they can guarnatee that things are simple json

<rhiaro_> ... and being able to provide a way to say that things are handled here and that is handled as the profile

<bigbluehat> +1 to the proposed comprise and for moving forward

<sandro> +1 get this over with

<rhiaro_> ... I'd prefer not to lose this opportunity to have the group agree

<azaroth> sandro: 7231 is actually clearer than 2616 (yay, progress!)

<Loqi> woot

<rhiaro_> eprodrom: well said!

<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note application conformance re list of lists

<rhiaro_> azaroth: I'm also +1 to the proposal from James

<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber

<cwebber2> azaroth: one concern is the list of list for geojson list of lists

<cwebber2> azaroth: that one can't just be a profile of json-ld, because json-ld won't provide those things

<melvster> please document concerns

<cwebber2> cwebber2: jasnell: that's just an extension anyway to AS2 though right?

<sandro> uhhhhh, but then those wont work in json-ld at all, so they break other things....?

<cwebber2> eprodrom: I have one more question for james, which is we're using this we're using this for AS1 and AS2, is this compatible

<cwebber2> jasnell: it's independent of that. activity+json is specifically AS2

<cwebber2> eprodrom: what I'd like to do is put up a proposal

<wilkie> is there a media type for AS1? I don't think I'm using one.

<tantek> from earlier: jasnell: with the AS type being a MUST, and equivalency is a SHOULD

<cwebber2> cwebber2: wilkie: :)

<jasnell> the proposal is to say that implementers SHOULD treat application/ld+json; profile="" as being equivalent to application/activity+json

<jasnell> but that application/activity+json is the media type for AS2 documents

<cwebber2> jasnell: I just sent it

<Loqi> Sandro made 1 edit to Socialwg/Media type for AS2

<cwebber2> eprodrom: that looks good, can you copy/pasta that with PROPOSAL:

<cwebber2> jasnell: mmmmhmmmmm

<wilkie> cwebber2++

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 54 karma

<jasnell> PROPOSAL: the proposal is to say that implementers SHOULD treat application/ld+json; profile="" as being equivalent to application/activity+json, but that application/activity+json is the media type for AS2 documents

<cwebber2> cwebber2: +1


<jasnell> cwebber2++

<azaroth> +1

<jasnell> +1

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 55 karma

<rhiaro_> +1

<bigbluehat> +1

<wilkie> +1

<tantek> +0 can live with as noted previously

<akuckartz> -1 (not convinced)

<ben_thatmustbeme> 0, i would prefer one type, but that acceptable

<sandro> +0 can live it, not excited

<cwebber2> cwebber2: akuckartz: is that -1 or -0?

<eprodrom> +1

<akuckartz> it is a -1

<cwebber2> sandro: would you rather have this spec never be published

<cwebber2> sandro: than go forward

<cwebber2> sandro: you'd like to have several more dozen person hours on this

<cwebber2> akuckartz: well the problem is there's several sequential arguments put forward

<cwebber2> akuckartz: the list of list is invalid

<melvster> 0 may not be a stakeholder so wont state a view, tho I've not seen arguments in favour of application/activity+json so it seems a strange vote

<cwebber2> akuckartz: you can overrule my objection but I'm not convinced and I think it's the wrong decision. You can overrule

<cwebber2> sandro: do you have a proposal

<cwebber2> akuckartz: I'm not against a common solution

<cwebber2> cwebber2: that does sound like you are

<cwebber2> cwebber2: by -1

<cwebber2> akuckartz: what if we reverse it

<cwebber2> cwebber2: oh okay

<cwebber2> cwebber2: that's a clearer proposal

<sandro> PROPOSED; the media type for AS2 is application/ld+json; profile="" and implementation SHOULD treat the media type application/activity+json as equivalent

<azaroth> +1

<melvster> +1

<cwebber2> +0

<csarven> +1

<sandro> +0

<akuckartz> +1

<tantek> -1 requiring JSONLD is a non-starter

<rhiaro_> +0

<bigbluehat> +0

<jasnell> -1

<cwebber2> cwebber2: I could live with this, but I feel like it's not as good.

<ben_thatmustbeme> jasnell, does the effect as1 people?

<jasnell> No, this has no effect on as1

<aaronpk> -1 agreed with Tantek

<cwebber2> cwebber2: it's obvious that there's stronger objections from many parts of the group

<wilkie> -0 jsonld seems more required. that'll cause implementation schisms I'd think

<KevinMarks> -1

<cwebber2> cwebber2: whereas previously there was closer to a happy compromise between many parts of the group

<eprodrom> +0

<KevinMarks> If json-ld can't support lists of lists it needs to be fixed

<cwebber2> cwebber2: again I think we're going to lose an opportunity

<tantek> also what wilkie said - it becomes much harder to go pitch / ask developers to implement something supposedly simple JSON but says MUST support JSONLD mediatype.

<cwebber2> sandro: do you think you understand where these -1s are coming from

<cwebber2> sandro: can you change their mind

<cwebber2> akuckarz: there's a third option which is to reduce it to one

<cwebber2> akuckartz: which is to reduce to one option

<cwebber2> sandro: no -1s would go away

<tantek> similarly there's another option to *only* use application/activity+json

<cwebber2> azaroth: some not all

<csarven> KevinMarks If List of Lists is a requirement? One can raise arbitrary structures and say that it is a non-starter.

<melvster> any user stories for lists of lists?

<azaroth> csarven: Yes, for GeoJSON

<KevinMarks> List of lists is valid json. Json-ld should be able to handle them or stop calling itself json

<aaronpk> A list of list is valid json so it's ridiculous to specify a media type that disallows valid json

<csarven> azaroth Is GeoJSON-like data in the UC?

<rhiaro_> scribenick: rhiaro_

<ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2++

cwebber: we should take the opportunity to find a compromise that more people are happy with

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 56 karma

<csarven> KevinMarks That argument has 0 barring on what's being discussed.

<tantek> alternatively we could propose a straw poll on *only* "application/activity+json" for the folks who prefer "just one mediatype" if they would like to consider it

<akuckartz> ok, I change to -0

<azaroth> csarven: Good question, but I've heard it asserted that it's in scope.

<wilkie> rhiaro++

<aaronpk> Maybe we should start calling it JSONish-LD

<scribe> scribenick: cwebber2

<Loqi> rhiaro has 182 karma


<tantek> eprodrom: note ^^^ akuckartz above

eprodrom: to mf2 people, is there any way to rephrase #2 proposal where you'd be happy

<csarven> azaroth If that's in the scope, a URL would be nice. When was it initially asserted?

tantek: I think you got the compromise you're aksing for if you look agove

sandro: what's that

eprodrom: which is to just overrule it?

tantek: no, he changed it to -0

eprodrom: I see it, no if that's the case, if there are no other objections, I'd like to mark it as resolved

cwebber2: yes hold on

<melvster> honestly i dont think saying "json ld is a non starter" is any kind of argument

<melvster> when its a W3C REC

RESOLUTION: the proposal is to say that implementers SHOULD treat application/ld+json; profile="" as being equivalent to application/activity+json, but that application/activity+json is the media type for AS2 documents

<tantek> melvster lots of W3C RECs are non-starters today.

<sandro> melvster, not every W3C Rec is welcome in every context

<akuckartz> melvster++

eprodrom: great, I'd like to give my congrats to the group

<Loqi> melvster has 19 karma

eprodrom: if nothing else is done today, this is a huge step forward

cwebber2: yes I agree, congrats all

eprodrom: I'd like to move on to the extension vocab

<sandro> akuckartz++ for making a clear argument, but also being willing to compromise

<Loqi> akuckartz has 3 karma

jasnell: there's a proposal to drop story / folder / alboum
... my proposal is to set up an extension vocab to include those and some other extensions, like Blog

<tantek> +1 keep dropping things

<csarven> If some W3C Recs are not welcome, I think it is reasonable to say that mf2 is a non-starter.

<wilkie> +1 drop all named collections, honestly

jasnell: album, blog, story, form(?) and wiki


jasnell: something that's not core but should be defined, basically
... here's a link to a strawman draft

<csarven> melvster++

<Loqi> melvster has 20 karma

<sandro> melvster, in voting mostly what counts is if someone is willing to lie in the road. That's what matters, not what people think on the wiki.

eprodrom: what about making this as any kind of ? for the core

jasnell: i could address that if I understood it

eprodrom: instead of 3 docuemnts, we have 2 documents, one with core classes and types, secondary doc is the extension

jasnell: I'm not sure that buys us very much
... the core is the minimal core that folks should understand

<wilkie> tantek++

<Loqi> tantek has 257 karma

jasnell: what the proposed extensions are... we'll have an extension vocab anyway
... and still have a home for these other things

eprodrom: ok I buy that

tantek: I want to put forth a proposal wilkie brought up, which is to drop all the named collections
... I strongly support this
... and rather than leave this a responsibility for jasnell, leave this as a separate spec for someone else to do

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to suggest dropping all the named collections as wilkie said, and leave it up to those that support those collections to put forth an extension draft for

jasnell: that' thes same proposal

tantek: I'm saying don't commit to it here, let someone else do it with any commitment to take it to rec trac
... I think that's a bit different than what was on IRC and the minutes

<jasnell> my proposal is for the extension to be a note

<jasnell> not a rec track

tantek: I think that burden should not fall to you, but to the strong advocates of it

<jasnell> I am an advocate of it

<jasnell> :-)

<tantek> :)

<wilkie> :)

eprodrom: if we have no more discussion, then maybe we can resolve this

<jasnell> and I've already started a draft ...

eprodrom: maybe along the lines of a simple... accept that it.... well move story/folder/album to a new extension vocab

cwebber2: hold on
... what are all the terms

<jasnell> I'll write it... one sec

cwebber2: story/folder/album/wiki?
... ok I'll let jasnell do it :)

<jasnell> PROPOSED: move Folder, Album, Story out of core into separate extension vocabulary

<tantek> jasnell, yes a note-track I think would be a better start

<tantek> and we should be explicit about that

cwebber2: +1

<eprodrom> +1

<jasnell> +1

<azaroth> +0

<akuckartz> +1

eprodrom: great

<tantek> +1 with caveat that the "separate extension vocabulary" is at best a note (we can discuss more later)

<wilkie> +1

eprodrom: I think that makes sense tantek

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

eprodrom: barring any objections, marked as resolved

<rhiaro_> +1

RESOLUTION: move Folder, Album, Story out of core into separate extension vocabulary

eprodrom: we are digging deep into AS2 and since we have good progress, I suggest we take one more AS2 item before going on to the invited expert stuff

cwebber2: I'm good with that

<ben_thatmustbeme> Amy's agenda item is from last week too i think

cwebber2: ben_thatmustbeme: whats amy's item?

eprodrom: number 205 is next
... could you characterize this rhiaro


<ben_thatmustbeme> this one cwebber2

<jasnell> I just noticed that #208, #223 are duplicated in the agenda

rhiaro: I noticed when you tried to put together a collection you could go one way but not the other


rhiaro: <so basically, have references back>

tantek: do we have a solution from james

<rhiaro_> so you can see when you have an object, which collections its in

jasnell: like I said last week, we used to have a memberOf property, but it seems like nobody thought it was needed, so was dropped in an earlier revision. There's other vocab terms that could be used as extensions for the same purpose

<rhiaro_> I can live with whatever on this, it was just a thought

jasnell: in any other use case.. I think there's no proof of need to do this
... I'd say it's an optional thing, I'm +0 on it

eprodrom: csarven, you've jumped in on this
... anything to say?

<wilkie> strict specified ontologies are surprisingly unimportant. I can only see them being used for collection discovery of some kind. I'm indifferent.

csarven: hi, I think there's a big list of partOf members, make sure inverses are in place, let's reuse existing terms... that's just kind of a cleaner approach

cwebber2: csarven: hope I got that right

eprodrom: proposal is to use partOf or whatever from another vocab

<jasnell> which is the extension approach

csarven: yes, just use one from another vocab

<tantek> if there are no strong feelings, we should just drop

<tantek> more minimal is better

eprodrom: do you have a favorite you could propose

<ben_thatmustbeme> tantek++

<rhiaro_> If someone is using something from another vocab, it doesn't matter, right?

<Loqi> tantek has 258 karma

csarven: dc terms, or schema maybe

<rhiaro_> We don't have to pick one right now

eprodrom: james any feelings?

jasnell: we decided quite a while ago that AS2 should not depend on any other vocabulary. I have no problem as a best practice for implementers, but don't want to spec saying they should or must

eprodrom: I'm going to write a proposal

<KevinMarks_> Is category/tag not how we empirically do "member of collection"?

eprodrom: let's see if this matches amy's expectations

<tantek> rhiaro: do you think this is worth postponing / dropping?

<rhiaro_> I'm happy to drop this

<tantek> no one has strong feelings right?

<csarven> jasnell: Would you be cool to reuse existing terms (e.g., hasPart/isPartOf), and make sure there is a mapping to dcterms or whatever?'

eprodrom: which is that we close 205 with recommendation to use.. is it partOf from dc terms csarven ?

csarven: I was typing a mini proposal to james..woudl you mind getting to that?

jasnell: yes we decided there would be no nominative dependency on another vocab, we already say use vcard if you're gonna do that... would probably be safe to say should use dc terms, just don't make it a requirmement

eprodrom: sounds good

<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: close 205 with recommendation to use partOf from DC:terms

<tantek> camelCase--

<KevinMarks_> I propose using tag

csarven: if as does have its own, at least map to dc terms

<Loqi> camelCase has 0 karma

<eprodrom> +1

cwebber2: tantek: that's mixedCase :) #pedantry

<tantek> what if we close without a recommendation?

<Loqi> 4e9sbQGy.jpg

cwebber2: CamelCase is this


<rhiaro_> All the same to me


<akuckartz> camelCase++

<rhiaro_> +1 moving on

<jasnell> +1 with or without the recommendation

<Loqi> CamelCase has 1 karma

<Loqi> too much karma!

<wilkie> 0

<azaroth> Is the implication that any MAY or SHOULD can be from an external vocab?

<KevinMarks_> That's bactrian vs dromedary 🐪 camel case

eprodrom: hopefully that answers rhiaro's original need

rhiaro: yep fine

<tantek> ?

eprodrom: can we mark resolved? looks that way

RESOLUTION: close 205 with recommendation to use partOf from DC:terms

<tantek> -0 can live with it - expects it to be at risk in practice

eprodrom: then we can do in last 5 minutes is address chris webber's question
... I know we've gone FIFO but would like to do this

<rhiaro_> scribenick: rhiaro_

cwebber2: we have some people sitting on the possible IE list
... and I know we have someone who is eager to implement
... and we don't want to lose the opportunity
... I know there are people who look interesting there, but specifically the ownCloud people have emailed me asking what they can do to get inovled
... Would be a shame to lose them while they're keen

eprodrom: The chairs today thought that the queue was empty
... Are we talking about the wiki page?

cwebber2: they ahve put themselves on the wiki page

<tantek> URL?

cwebber2: there are 4 people

<melvster> FYI: frank from owncloud contacted me last week, and is interested in Solid

cwebber2: Specifically Frank from ownCloud


cwebber2: and Michel Volver from friendica

<KevinMarks_> Propose adding tag to the collection class as that is how we do collections

cwebber2: and Tibor
... But specifically Frank, Jessica, Amy and I have spoken to him in person, and he's emailed me multiple times
... They ahve a huge userbase and it would be great to have them

eprodrom: we have multiple queues for people to add themselves
... I'll take it as an action for myself to get this resolved
... We need to get them into the main queue for IE applications
... sandro doe sthat soudn right?

sandro: yep

<cwebber2> eprodrom, sandro, for reference,

eprodrom: if there's any quesitons, we'll address them at our chair's meeting next week

<cwebber2> eprodrom, thank you, sounds good

eprodrom: will be a week until we get around to this

<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2

<rhiaro_> ... appreciate you bringing this up

eprodrom: if closed on this, we have couple more minutes

<Arnaud> that's the problem with having two lists of requesters: the wiki and the application queue

eprodrom: not sure if the next item on agenda is something we can do in 90 seconds

jasnell: I have 2 we maybe could do completely

<tantek> +1 jasnell

jasnell: 247 and 248, rmoving title property and moving displayName to name
... never seen title fully implemented

<azaroth> +1 remove title, rename to name


jasnell: that's from as1
... and displayName to name, displayName is from as1

<tantek> +1 on both proposals from jasnell

eprodrom: I think displayName is used



eprodrom: I think title is used in

cwebber2: displayName is used I think eprodrom
... last I looked?
... maybe I'm wrong

<wilkie> +1 on both

eprodrom: I'd like to confirm
... displayName is a synonym, for backwards compat, we could map displayName for context


jasnell: displayName is a synonym, for backwards compat, we could map displayName for context

eprodrom: sounds good, maybe more discussion to do and I'd like to confirm

<tantek> note, only +1s so far in IRC

eprodrom: we'll roll over to next week

<tantek> thanks jasnell for the proposed resolutions

eprodrom: thanks to everyone for time
... look forward to next week

<tantek> cwebber2++ for minuting!

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 57 karma

<wilkie> thanks all

<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting

cwebber2: how to end meeting again?

oh there we go


Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]