From W3C Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



Social Web Working Group Teleconference

26 Apr 2016

See also: IRC log


aaronpk, Arnaud, eprodrom, tsyesika, bengo, cwebber2, ´1



<tantek> still looking for a scribe

I'll scribe

<tantek> scribe: bengo


tantek: First agenda items is last week's minutes

<eprodrom> Chair is missing

<Arnaud> just fix it

<Arnaud> yes

<cwebber2> +1

<eprodrom> +1

PROPOSAL: approve minutes of 19 Apr 2016


<tsyesika> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-04-19-minutes

<cwebber2> I'm on the call

<manuel> HI!

<manuel> hi!

<tantek> hello manuel - I don't recognize you, are you a member of the Social Web Working Group?

<manuel> not really

<tantek> manuel, you have found us in the middle of our weekly telcon, perhaps you could wait til 11:00 to chat here?

<manuel> I'm working with GNU social developing plugins and I'm interested on federation and social web

<manuel> ok!

<tantek> thank you manuel

tantek: Next up is Webmention CR Exit Criteria


<KevinMarks> I'm only in irc today

aaronpk: Not sure if everyone got a chance to look at this after I sent email the other day
... I'd like to incorporate these additions into WD if everyone thinks they're reasonable

<eprodrom> aaronpk: Each feature may be implemented by a different set of products, there is no requirement that all features be implemented by a single product

<eprodrom> That comma should be a period

<aaronpk> that came from

eprodrom: One of the points for an Implementation is available as downloadable software. Is that a normal requirement?

aaronpk: I copied from HTML and left out the part that allows for purely private implementations. That's the only thing here that might be surprising. I feel like it's an intentionally high bar to set for webmention, which is not a bad thing.
... I could be swayed on that

<tantek> sandro are you on the call?

eprodrom: It seems like it would be hard to get to CR with just two private implementations, so I'm not really worried about it
... I think it's fine. I wouldn't change it.

<cwebber2> it looks fine to me

<KevinMarks> implementations for the sake of CR you mean? presumably interop with closed code is still good

eprodrom: Did a new webmention WD go out last week?

aaronpk: Yes I published a new draft on, I believe, last Wednesday
... Not CR language. Just current state of draft at end of last week's call

<eprodrom> Should we vote on it?

"is suitable for a person to use as his/her primary implementation on a website" - Is this a requirement?

Unclear if "Implementation" bullets are AND or OR

aaronpk: I saw this language elsewhere. It has to be 'suitable' but not necessarily used. To encourage production quality


<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-04-26

aaronpk: I can make it explicit. They're intended to be ANDs.

tantek: I don't think sandro is on the call. Arnaud have you looked over those exit criteria? What is your opinion?

<manuel> could I be on the call?

<manuel> just to hear?

Arnaud: I think aaronpk did a great job on webmention. I do want to point out that there is no open source requirement for implementations in the W3C process. We are free to add it. We are required to collection implementation reports.

<KevinMarks> manuel: bengo is transcribing the call

Arnaud: It would be good to have a template implementation report for webmention and process for organizing them into one consolidated repo to take to W3C management when we feel like we have met the requirements to move to PR

<KevinMarks> "suitable" is proven by people actually using it, I assume

aaronpk: I know of some not-publicly available implementations. 'open source' isn't specifically an important requirement. I intentionally wrote 'publicly available' and not 'open source'.
... I do know that there are a few implementations that are not publicly available but would interoperate and pass the test.

Arnaud: I said open source. I would include downloadable/available in the same bag. It's an unusual requirement.

aaronpk: Would you prefer I remove it?

Arnaud: Yeah. I'm not opposed to it. The implementation report process can be gamed with fake software or reports of implementations that don't really exist.

<tantek> manuel, not today, but if you apply to be an invited expert and are accepted (likely for implementers of social wg specs), you can join in the future. Our minutes are public. See and we can chat more after the call!

aaronpk: If the W3C process is such that the closed implementations are fine, I'll adjust webmention's to allow that too.

tantek: It didn't sound like there are any objections to the high bar of requiring public implementations


<aaronpk> "Non-shipping product releases must have implemented the feature(s) for a period of at least one month in order to demonstrate stability, or be endorsed by their responsible organization as sufficiently stable."

aaronpk: Given previous quote, I thought it would be even easier to say implementations must be publicly available, not even for a month

I like high bar

tantek: Let's move this forward and make a proposal to accept these CR criteria

Arnaud: Is there a test suite?


aaronpk: There is one for sending webmentions at
... for endpoint disccovery, sending, updating, and deleted. I haven't yet written the other half for testing receiving of webmentions.

<KevinMarks> there is already

Arnaud: For practical purposes it is good to have a link in the spec we publish to the test suite, even if it's work in progress
... So that it's easy for people who want to implement
... We can finish CR exit crtieria resolution before talking test suite linking

PROPOSED: accept webmention exit criteria as written by Aaron, after including changes discussed above by bengo, eprodrom


<eprodrom> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<tsyesika> +´1

<wilkie> +1

<tsyesika> *+1

tantek: I think that's everyone. Consider it Resolved

RESOLUTION: accept webmention exit criteria as written by Aaron, after including changes discussed above by bengo, eprodrom

aaronpk: I think there is a tool that sends test data to an endpoint for sending and receiving. Just haven't turned it into a hosted service for others. But I will make that more explicit when I add test suite link to the draft.

tantek: Can you add a link to

aaronpk: yeah.

tantek: Does anyone have a preference on how to link to test suite?
... next point. When people have tried the test suite. Where should they send their results?

aaronpk: What's normal?

<tantek> tantek: go ahead and link to the test suite from the CR exit criteria

Arnaud: Usually there is a mailing list. We could use that.

tantek: I've seen it done lots of different ways. Another possibility is for you to come up with an implementation report template (as Arnaud suggested). And then either include or link it from the spec.
... Another possibility is start the implementation report on GitHub with the template, and accept pull requests for others to send theirs


tantek: If email, you need a text template. If github, maybe a markdown template.

Arnaud: LDP's, for example, test suite reports were machine readable. Don't have to do that here, but just an example.
... test suite and implementation report are in the document right up front

<KevinMarks> doesn't document the implementations explicity?

tantek: There's no harm in putting the link in both places (header and exit criteria section)

<KevinMarks> it's already machine readable:

aaronpk: To try to summarize what has to be done before we enter CR (vs during CR phase). Comma thing. Adding links to test suite. With those two things done, we can publish a new WD. What else needs to be done before CR?

Arnaud: We need to be able to claim that the specification has received broad review. And as much as possible, we need to be able to demonstrate that by pointing to e.g. issues list with discussion from not just working group members.
... sandro would say "it would be best to have the test suite ready when we go to CR". Because as soon as there is a call for implementations, people may do it. And if there is no test suite it is kind of a downer. The sooner the test suite is available, the better. But not a show stopper.

aaronpk: With that in mind, I would still like to publish a new version of the WD with today's changes

tantek: Having that draft published would let you send an email to the WG mailing list asking for wider review. As well as any other W3C lists that you or the group thinks should review it before CR.

PROPOSED: aaronpk will make suggested changes to the draft, including adding links to test suite. And publish a new version of the WD before next week's call


<aaronpk> +1


<eprodrom> +1

<cwebber2> +1

RESOLUTION: aaronpk will make suggested changes to the draft, including adding links to test suite. And publish a new version of the WD before next week's call

tantek: Arnaud, quickly looking at the process document, I see a Do people use that?


Arnaud: idk.
... I don't know.


Arnaud: It's not a very busy list, so I suspect it's not used much.



aaronpk: Some SocialWG stuff is already on that list (Micropub, Webmention)

tantek: Yeah it's probably fine to send something there indicating that Webmention is a WD we intend to take for CR.



tantek: And we should send it to our public mailing list as well

Arnaud: Yes. That way when we go to CR it's clear we've told people and they've had a chance to look at it

<tantek> Update on Micropub use of ActivityPub syntax

tantek: Next agenda item. I added it for you after last week because I thought it was important to continue discussing or getting updates. Update on micropub use of activity syntax.


aaronpk: I was able to run some new update syntax on my own server after fixing some bugs. And I could use it to edit posts on my site.
... We've been talking on the GitHub thread with implementors. And we'd like to be able to handle multiple operations in the same request, which the other syntax can't do
... People didn't seem opinionated about JSON vs form-urlencoded, just that one is better than multiple

tantek: What's the next step?

aaronpk: I would like feedback from WG memebers
... Otherwise, my instinct here is to not change the syntax since it is working and has the benefit of supporting multiple edits in same request.
... But don't want to do that without more WG feedback

<cwebber2> I'm reading the linked indiewebcamp irc log

<cwebber2> oh wait

<cwebber2> this is from the meeting


aaronpk: There are some changes that have been in the Editor's draft for awhile now.

<cwebber2> emailing the list would be helpful, I'm confused a bit about what's being proposed

tantek: We're getting close to top of the hour. So going to suggest that aaronpk email the list with how you'd like to move forward in next telecon.
... and asking for the feedback you're looking for
... Sound reasonable to everyone?


<cwebber2> yes

<eprodrom> Good

<tsyesika> yep :)

eprodrom: For ActivityStreams, we had a WD that was supposed to be done for today. But I got bogged down in updating example, so I'm working with jasnell to try to make it easier.
... It looks like we should be ready for next week.
... I may just update JSON versions and not the other ones. Progress is moving forward but it's mostly editorial.

<jasnell> will be able to look at those examples in a day or so

eprodrom: It looks like we came to conclusions on the Relationship object.
... Oh look it's jasnell !!

<jasnell> my ears were burning

eprodrom: I think the only thing we dont' ahve a conclusion on is the tombstoning one.

tantek: So intention is to be able to have a new WD next week?

eprodrom: yes

cwebber2: We made some progress on ActivityPub last week but not this week.
... We're hoping to clear remaining issues over the course of this week

tantek: Are we close to new WD next week?

cwebber2: I think we could, yeah

tantek: See you all next week


<cwebber2> lata!

<wilkie> bengo++

<Loqi> bengo has 14 karma

Will someone type the incantation to end th emeeting?

I will do this lata

<tantek> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. accept webmention exit criteria as written by Aaron, after including changes discussed above by bengo, eprodrom
  2. aaronpk will make suggested changes to the draft, including adding links to test suite. And publish a new version of the WD before next week's call

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/04/26 18:02:47 $

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/WG/WD/
Found Scribe: bengo
Inferring ScribeNick: bengo

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: aaronpk, Arnaud, eprodrom, tsyesika, bengo, cwebber2, ´1
Present: aaronpk Arnaud eprodrom tsyesika bengo cwebber2 ´1
Found Date: 26 Apr 2016
Guessing minutes URL:
People with action items: 

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

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]