#dev 2022-04-19

2022-04-19 UTC
Seirdy and Kongpc joined the channel
#
Kongpc
KAMPANAT THUMWONG
jacky, gxt and jjuran joined the channel
#
@dissolve333
@elonmusk if you take over Twitter, any chance we'll see some of the newer w3c social integrations? @indiewebcamp would love to see webmention support.
(twitter.com/_/status/1516317437897101312)
[jamesg483] joined the channel
#
[jamesg483]
Good day everyone!
#
[jamesg483]
petermolnar The Discord bridge is down.
mro, nanoflite and tetov-irc joined the channel
#
@ThomasKujawa
↩️ so. nochmal die beiden WP-Plugins installiert. Webseite mit gefundenem Ergebnis bei http://brid.gy: https://www.fachkraeftesicherer.de/arbeitszeiten-in-der-landwirtschaft/
(twitter.com/_/status/1516360569976201221)
mro joined the channel
mro joined the channel
#
@DerWagrier
Brauche mal eure Hilfe. Versuche gerade Webmentions im Blog zu integrieren. Leider ist ein Plugin dazwischen, dass das blockiert. Herauszufinden welches ist Frickelkram. Um das zu testen möchte ich bitten, diesen Post mal zu liken. Ich brauche 16 Likes https://derwagrier.de/rezept-subway-cookies-diy/
(twitter.com/_/status/1516381906186690568)
nertzy, hs0ucy, mro, nanoflite, [Will_Monroe], [Sam_Butler], chenghiz_ and jacky joined the channel
#
GWG
I thought about writing an IndieAuth post along the lines of aaronpk's 2020 spec update post
#
GWG
I haven't seen that many people discuss it since it came out
#
GWG
I just wonder if I can write it in an approachable way... trying to get better at that
#
[tantek]
yes, "open source" IS a dev thing. snarfed, [Sam_Butler]
#
jamietanna
Gwg++ that sounds good!
#
Loqi
Gwg has 16 karma in this channel over the last year (68 in all channels)
#
GWG
Jamietanna: I started it, then wondered... maybe I need someone to proof
#
[tantek]
[Sam_Butler] that "open source means I can switch" fallacy is exemplified by the numerous examples of OSS /monoculture
#
[tantek]
this is also a good reason why users really should not have to care at all about "open source"
#
[tantek]
it doesn't actually directly get them any user-discernible benefits. if anything "open source" is a *distraction* from what actually makes a difference: support for open standards
#
[Sam_Butler]
I think I would agree with what you're saying [tantek], especially the focus on open standards and how that enables to switch. And I also agree that if there is a technology with legitimate community / cooperative ownership, then I am less concerned with it being open-source — and may not be interested at all. I suppose there is on one hand the *user-experience question* — where open source may not matter much. And then th
#
[Sam_Butler]
is a political question, which seems inescapable, relevant to the tools — who gets to decide how the tool is used? Who has "ownership"/"stewardship" of it? What does the decision-making, future development, etc look like?
#
[Sam_Butler]
Here is a great presentation from Joshua Mckenty on some of that, which opened my eyes (in particular to the monoculture that OSS can be): https://www.coss.community/cossc/ocs-2020-breakout-joshua-mckenty-4i35
#
[tantek]
and that "political" aspect may be the difference between "make something that's more broadly accessible" and "make what you want"
#
[tantek]
aside: this feels tangentially related to indieweb dev efforts, has anyone read this report? https://whoseknowledge.org/resource/dti-structured-data-report/
#
[tantek]
GWG ^ you might be interested in it, they've got three recorded sessions / discussions
#
[Sam_Butler]
There are certain contexts that can be more complicated than "make what you want", I believe. In particular, the notion of "the relationship is the project."
#
[Sam_Butler]
of their own volition.
#
[Sam_Butler]
There are times that I am capable of making what I want. And yet, if what I want is also others using the tool with me, then it may be prudent to organize and involve others in the making — giving them stake, relationship to what is being built. So once a thing is made, I'm not necessarily needing to ask others to try it — but rather, since people were involved in building it themselves, they feel that connection and use/s
nertzy, jacky and mro joined the channel
#
[tantek]
anywhere where "the relationship is the project", that's an interface for an open standard, which is very different than "just coding"
#
[tantek]
the corollary is also true, if you want to make an open standard it *requires* that you do so collaboratively with multiple others. solo created "open standards" are nearly useless and nearly always doomed
#
[tantek]
I would rephrase "the relationship is the project" with "anywhere you need agreement" for something to "work"
#
[tantek]
"relationship" is more overloaded than is useful in that context IMO
#
[tantek]
slight correction, there are other variations of collaboration as well, like shared services (bridgy, webmentionio), libraries, and others
jacky and mro joined the channel
#
@atomicpoet
↩️ bloodbath and I'm not in love with how they work right now. Still, web 1.0 plus webmentions would be a better implementation of web 1.0 on its own and web 2.0, in my opinion. https://indieweb.social/@m2m/108159995373449079 (2/2)
(twitter.com/_/status/1516481640419237891)
#
@atomicpoet
RT @m2m@indieweb.social atomicpoet that's why there are webmentions. Having said this I'd also add that cool technologies like webmentions should be way easier to implement than they are now. It's discouraging. I've implemented them in my website but it was kind of a (1/2)
(twitter.com/_/status/1516481639383277573)
[jamesg483], neceve, mro, angelo, nanoflite, russ_bain, tetov-irc, nertzy and gRegor joined the channel