From W3C Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



Social Web Working Group Teleconference

19 Apr 2016

See also: IRC log


sandro, Arnaud, annbass, eprodrom, bengo, aaronpk, KevinMarks, cwebber, 1, tantek


<cwebber2> dialing in, sorry!

<eprodrom> anyone can scribe?

I will scribe

<eprodrom> scribe: bengo

<annbass> *whoops .. just discovered I was on mute ..

<annbass> * (was volunteering)


eprodrom: Let's get started. First agenda item is approval of minutes from last week

<eprodrom> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<Karli> + 1

<KevinMarks> +1


<annbass> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: approve minutes of 12 Apr 2016

RESOLUTION: approve minutes of 12 Apr 2016

eprodrom: Great. That's all for administrative items, right?
... May be important to note we're 8 weeks away from Portland F2F. Probably time to make travel plans
... next up - Document Status

eprodrom: Tried to resolve all issues [for AS2] Working Draft but some issues were too complex to resolve


eprodrom: There is a new Editor's Draft that covers quite a few issues, but not all


eprodrom: I'll dig through remaining issues 1 by 1
... #297 - Still haven't resolved, whether we'll drop questions or add a closed' tag. Need to work through with jasnell


eprodrom: 296 - Unfortunately, only 50/170 examples have 'name', even thugh it's SHOULD.

<Loqi> Abasset made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-04-12-minutes

eprodrom: One way to resolve is have spec be more specific about which object types SHOULD have name. Alternatively, add .name to all examples. Discussing with jasnell


eprodrom: #292 - Think we have resolution on this one. Just haven't added it yet.
... 289 - Relationship object. I have reviewed this, and there are some use cases for social networking that we would not be able to represent without this object. So I think we need to remove it in a way that accomodates those use cases, or keep it for now.


eprodrom: 249 - There are some activity types with properties that are optional that are not explained in the examples. The prob is there are half a dozen and I need to get them updated in all representations, not just JSON, RDFa and the rest too.
... But there has been good progress this week on exit criteria, conformance, etc. Just want to make sure we do the right thing on these last issues
... So do we go to WD as it stands? Or take another week to resolve the remaining issues

<cwebber2> I'm ok with going to WD but have no strong opinions

<tantek> I'd say better to publish a WD sooner

<sandro> (neutral)

<annbass> ditto

<tantek> I like the progress that's been made and think the spec benefits from that

eprodrom: For my purposes, I'd prefer taking another week to finalize issues before WD

<tantek> no objections

<annbass> sounds fine

eprodrom: How to handle all the types of examples in AS2 spec. It is burdensome to keep them all up to date.

<tantek> which languages?

<tantek> JSON vs JSONLD?

eprodrom: Wondering if there is a way to edit just JSON and have it render to the other formats

<tantek> can we ask for volunteers for help with the others?

eprodrom: microdata, RDFa, turtle are onerous
... Gonna hold off on worrying for now. If anyone can take on editing those dialects, that would be big help.

<annbass> did jasnell do all those in the beginning?

<annbass> (not that I'm sugg he be the updater)

<tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++ for help with updating the microformats versions of the examples

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 140 karma

annbass: I just thought, if he were the one who created it, he may have a technique for all the transforms

<eprodrom> AS2 questions?

eprodrom: Next up. Webmention
... but first. Any updates on documents other than that?

<eprodrom> Other document status updates?

<KevinMarks> doing it though code transforms is a good idea, as it helps clarify generality

cwebber2: Hello. We've been working through issues on ActivityPub


cwebber2: We've decided to allow submitting objects not-wrapped in Activity, and processor would treat as Create
... One area of debate: putting audience targeting on that object (not activity). Jessica thought it would be weird to have audience target on object only in client-to-server.
... Instead we could put no audience targeting on the object, and server would assume a default (e.g. public + followers)

eprodrom: A huge part of AS2 is having that access control. All of the object types in AS2 support audience targeting. So it seems straightforward to allow it. Dropping them seems like step backwards to me

cwebber2: Got it. That was slightly my preference too but wanted group feedback.
... Updated draft maybe coming in next week

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask about audience targetting being a distinguishing feature

<cwebber2> to respond

tantek: We had discussion in the past whether we should distinguish for developers when to use each spec. Access control is a key feature for both AS2 and ActivityPub. Maybe we can call that out explicitly.

<eprodrom> rhiaro: are you on the call?

eprodrom: rhiaro has that come up before?

cwebber2: Audience Targeting is a key feature of ActivityPub, but with AS2 it's supported feature, not implied/core. You can think about using activitystreams in just a published feed like Atom (without targeting).

eprodrom: This is a good issue to bring up and write about in "Social Protocols"

annbass: I have on paper a bunch of edits for Activity Streams 2.0 WD dated 15 Dec 2015 (logic/English correctness). I think they would be best for me to send via snailmail to jasnell but couldn't get address. eprodrom can I send to you?

eprodrom: yes

<Zakim> aaronpk, you wanted to discuss brief micropub update

<cwebber2> I think so too

aaronpk: Micropub status


aaronpk: There have been a few changes since latest WD on March 1. Couple of simplifications of syntax. Ultimately minor.
... Also been working on parallel update that is unpublished. It takes into account f2f discussion on converting JSON syntax to ActivityPub style. In the meantime, someone came along and implemented the ED in node.js Supports Create Update Delete.
... So I tried to get feedback on spec, and he said he prefers existing syntax to new one. And there were some benefits of old one that couldn't be accomodated in new syntax.


aaronpk: That leaves us still looking for more implementations and more feedback.

eprodrom: Can other group members help?

aaronpk: Take a look at the alternate version.

sandro: Should we link from current ED to alternative and ask for feedback?

aaronpk: I don't know
... The bulk of the Content changes in this alternative version. Most obvious in 'Update' section


aaronpk: Something else that came from feedback. I was leaning toward everything except create requiring JSON format. But the implementor said it wasn't too hard to also support formencoded, since the key/value structure is so similar

eprodrom: What would next steps be?

aaronpk: I'm not sure. Easiest thing for me is make no changes.

eprodrom: Open an issue on GitHub to invite discussion? I don't want you to get stuck on this without a clear transition. If you're willing to make a decision, group will respect that.

<KevinMarks> do other existing implementations support both formencoded and json, or just formencoded?

<KevinMarks> document support?

aaronpk: There's an existing issue for it

eprodrom: Let's give it a week for participants to look it over

aaronpk: works for me. After call, I'll update the issue to document this


<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask how many implementations of the ED again?

tantek: Is this the second implementation of micropub ED? or WD?

aaronpk: There are several implementations of creating posts linked from spec. In many languages. For updating/deleting, there are now two. This was second, and it was based on Mar 1 WD.

tantek: Was the first implementation your own server?

aaronpk: Yes

tantek: So this is first external feedback. Can we see if the two versions interoperate.

aaronpk: I want to do a validator for micropub, but it's on TODO list for now. Could test interop be using against each other. I'll add that to my list. Using this new implementation to edit posts on my site and in theory they should interoperate

PDX F2F logistics

aaronpk: Meeting is in a couple months. ESRI was going to host event but doesn't make sense anymore

<sandro> !! aaronpk leaving ESRI

aaronpk: I found a local company that can host. Close to old location so shouldn't require hotel changes
... They can provide coffee, snacks, meeting room. However, they don't have room for catered lunch. So I was planning on lunch reservations and nearby restaurants
... I would appreciate if someone could help sponsor the lunches.

<Arnaud> let everyone pay their own lunch

<Arnaud> we did that in Paris

<annbass> no need for you to pay, aaronpk

aaronpk: If that's the best option, I'll make sure I can find a place that can split check. Sound ok?

<cwebber2> sounds good

tantek: Is this close to food trucks? Good option for separate paying.

aaronpk: Yeah there are many food carts within five blocks
... Only downside is fragmented lunch discussion time, but we could bring food back to F2F.

+1 to outside

<annbass> I agree with Tantek.... get food, bring it back to same place ..

<sandro> aaronpk, can you update with the new location....?

<aaronpk> sandro, will do. didn't want to do it before the call for obvious reasons ;)

<eprodrom> Thumbs up for getting out

<tantek> +1 to food carts both days

aaronpk: Should we do food carts bothd ays and no reservation?

IMO yes

<cwebber2> food carts!

<tantek> and be outside both days

<annbass> sounds great .. pending weather

decentralized food choices

<annbass> (likely will be fine weather)

aaronpk: I'll update the wiki page

tantek: What about inviting local developers? Does new location make this more possible?

aaronpk: There isn't enough room to have more people. We'd have to hang out at the parks.
... could be challenging. Lunch downtown is popular.

tantek: Do you think it would appeal to local developers?

aaronpk: I'm not sure many would take us up on it. So I'm happy to not bother with the offer.

<tantek> up to you aaronpk - trust your judgment

eprodrom: We could do happy hour or dinner out with devs.

<tantek> +1 eprodrom

aaronpk: That would be easier

<tantek> maybe after the first day?

<eprodrom> social happy hour

<aaronpk> +1 to happy hour

eprodrom: Let's talk webmention

aaronpk: I've had good feedback from 21 tests for endpoint discovery.
... 1 test for update portion of webmention spec.
... Results have been promising. Most people passed endpoint discovery test, there are 2 or 3 that are tricky because of Link tag/header edge cases.
... Out of all 21, 17 different people were able to successfully reply to at least one. Of those, almost all use different implementations. ~13 distinct implementations.

<tantek> between 13 and 15?!? (!!!) wow

<eprodrom> Great news on that

aaronpk: For update test, it was only released Saturday. Looks like ~4 implementations passed though.
... I'm going to work more on update and counting results.

<tantek> what about delete tests?

eprodrom: Next steps?

aaronpk: Write more tests to cover rest of spec. More formally gather results and report on them.
... Still have some issues
... One issue, waiting on IANA rel registry updates

<tantek> sandro, do we have an issue category for "Waiting on external org?" :P ;)

aaronpk: I resolved many issues. Though some are 'waiting for commenter' since original commenter/reporter hasn't acked
... My question is "What is left before this can be CR"?

eprodrom: As we did with AS2, we have to assess exit criteria for Webmention. And have a vote when we take to CR.

aaronpk: Do exit criteria have to be in before CR or during/after?

sandro: before

<tantek> is there any value in publishing current ED as is as a WD?

aaronpk: So I'll work on that this week and maybe propose CR next week

<tantek> with all the issues resolved?

<aaronpk> oh yes thanks tantek

<tantek> (just as I asked for AS2)

aaronpk: I would like to propose publishing a new WD based on current ED


tantek: Looking at the changes, it looks like they're significant enough to publish WD ASAP, given e.g. CSRF improvements

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Publish new working draft of Webmention based on 15 April 2016 editor's draft

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Publish new working draft of Webmention based on 15 April 2016 editor's draft

<aaronpk> +1

<tantek> +1


<eprodrom> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<KevinMarks> +1

<annbass> +1

<sandro> +1

<annbass> great job, aaronpk!

RESOLUTION: Publish new working draft of Webmention based on 15 April 2016 editor's draft

aaronpk: I'll create a github issue for exit criteria on Webmention

<annbass> thanks for scribing, bengo .. good job! ditto on chairing, Evan

<eprodrom> that's all, folks

Do I need to do anything to end scribing?

<annbass> yes

<annbass> um .. trackbot, end meeting

<annbass> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. approve minutes of 12 Apr 2016
  2. Publish new working draft of Webmention based on 15 April 2016 editor's draft

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/04/19 17:58:08 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/6/8/
Succeeded: s/Cosed' tag. Need tow ork/'closed' tag. Need to work/
Succeeded: s/ahven't/haven't/
Succeeded: s/bunch of edits /bunch of edits for Activity Streams 2.0 WD dated 15 Dec 2015 /
Succeeded: s/idk/I don't know/
Succeeded: s/appear/appeal/
Found Scribe: bengo
Inferring ScribeNick: bengo
Default Present: sandro, Arnaud, annbass, eprodrom, bengo, aaronpk, KevinMarks, cwebber, 1, tantek
Present: sandro Arnaud annbass eprodrom bengo aaronpk KevinMarks cwebber 1 tantek

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 19 Apr 2016
Guessing minutes URL:
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]