GWG!tell kylewm, snarfed The Bridgy literature says it returns a 201. It seems to return a 200. 200 is correct according to the webmention specification. The literature seems wrong.
GWGsnarfed: Also, the WordPress recommendation is for the Indieweb plugin...not sure if you want to add to that as it doesn't include the webmention or semantic linkback pieces.
snarfedbridgy publish is a pretty unusual use of wm, though, and it definitely does create something as a side effect, so 201 is technically more correct for that
snarfedeh. i doubt that in practice - by that argument changing it to 200 would more likely break *existing* users - but i hear you. happy to change it if the community agrees.
GWGsnarfed: I also put in a proposal to allow query variables to be sent with a filter in the webmention plugin to support your extra query parameters.
GWGsnarfed: I want to improve the Bridgy Publish plugin. When the query variable filter is stable, I'll likely switch to using it. But always a question of how I can do better.
Loqikylewm: GWG left you a message 37 minutes ago: The Bridgy literature says it returns a 201. It seems to return a 200. 200 is correct according to the webmention specification. The literature seems wrong. http://indiewebcamp.com/irc/2016-06-11/line/1465689739846
ben_thatmustbemeit looks like i only have 8 where i stored the vouch url, but i'm not sure I store them if they are whitelisted, have to check the code
GWG"if a Webmention endpoint does accept requests with additional headers, it SHOULD protect itself against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. One way to prevent CSRF attacks is by including a CSRF token in a query string parameter of the Webmention endpoint, so that a Webmention sender finds the token when discovering the endpoint."
gRegorLoveMicropub question: on /token-endpoint the JWT example uses 'date_issued' then later under verification it uses 'issued_at'. Is one of those incorrect, or is it just whatever is set in the JWT initially?
tantekgRegorLove: cool. I know copy/pasting each month is a bit of a pain, but I do think the lower barrier to experimenting with the format of the page (without risking changing past pages) is helping with iteration to keep improving them
j4y_funabashiaaronpk: Just going through webmention.rocks and wondering if test 12 should have 2 more not-webmentions, one in the Link header and an extra anchor before the correct one?
frzn, Erkan_Yilmaz, friedcell, kerozene, Rev_Illo, arthurspooner, Kopfstein and tantek joined the channel
gRegorLove!tell aaronpk Micropub question: on /token-endpoint the JWT example uses 'date_issued' then later under verification it uses 'issued_at'. Is one of those incorrect? Is it OK to use whatever's in the JWT initially, or is 'issued_at' expected?
Loqiaaronpk: gRegorLove left you a message 1 hour, 20 minutes ago: Micropub question: on /token-endpoint the JWT example uses 'date_issued' then later under verification it uses 'issued_at'. Is one of those incorrect? Is it OK to use whatever's in the JWT initially, or is 'issued_at' expected? http://indiewebcamp.com/irc/2016-06-12/line/1465770133222
aaronpkGWG: snarfed: what is the issue with thhe 200/201 for bridgy? the spec only talks about creating "status page" resources and returning http 201, but it makes sense that if something else is created it would also return 201. it should only return 200 if there is no location header returned
aaronpkben_thatmustbeme: interesting about the http 449 response. wonder if we should add some leniency to the spec to support extensions like that then
aaronpkgRegorLove: the example that has "date_issued" is a self-contained example of one way to create tokens so doesnt relate to the other example with "issued_at" below