2014-10-14 UTC
cmhobbs, bblfish, caseorganic and jasnell-github joined the channel
# 03:11 jasnell-github [w3c-socialwg-activitystreams] jasnell closed pull request #31: Fix a few simple typos (gh-pages...typos) http://git.io/_MmjOw bblfish, melvster, harry, hhalpin, nicolagreco, wilkie_, nicolagreco_ and jasnell-github joined the channel
# 12:16 jasnell-github [w3c-socialwg-activitystreams] elf-pavlik opened pull request #32: first version of tests for expected RDF (master...testing) http://git.io/M4BzxA nicolagreco, nicolagreco_, cmhobbs and tantek joined the channel
bblfish joined the channel
# 16:16 cwebber2 tantek: others: does anyone know if our irc username here should be the same as our otherwise w3c login username? # 16:16 cwebber2 I'd switch to cwebber, though I haven't figured out how to "reclaim" that from my @creativecommons.org account, if at all # 16:24 Arnaud cwebber2: I'm not sure why you needed to create a new account # 16:25 Arnaud you should be able to change the association on your old account and just use that # 16:25 Arnaud do you still have your account name and password? # 16:25 tantek cwebber2, indeed, email-based identifiers do have issues like that. I don't even know where to go to start troubleshooting that. # 16:26 Arnaud tantek, your w3c user id is your email address? # 16:27 Arnaud I'm not aware of w3c forcing you to use an email address as your user id # 16:27 tantek Arnaud that's not what it expects when I login - some system at w3c assigned me "Tantekelik" as my w3c user id # 16:27 tantek note the missing first character of my last name due to failure of such system to do anything reasonable with high ASCII (nevermind UTF8). and no, dropping a character is not reasonable. # 16:29 bret sounds like the work of a rowdy regex # 16:30 Arnaud this being said, I think this can be addressed by sending a request to sysreq # 16:31 Arnaud I for one never changed user id even though I've changed affiliation w3c -> ibm # 16:31 tantek Arnaud - similarly, Microsoft -> independent (Technorati) -> independent -> Mozilla # 16:34 tantek Arnaud, re: "can be addressed" - are you referring to fixing a w3c user id? do you know any examples of anyone successfully doing that? # 16:35 tantek (have emailed sysreq before, wanted some evidence that things may go differently with a retry) # 16:35 Arnaud I can't say I have experience with that particular type of requests, no # 16:37 Arnaud in this case, as AC rep I can update any user profile associated with IBM # 16:38 Arnaud but I don't see why Christopher couldn't update is cwebber account and use that # 16:39 Arnaud that doesn't require mocking around with the userid itself jtauber and Shane joined the channel
# 16:50 cwebber2 Arnaud: I think the trouble I ran into was I couldn't figure out what I had switched my password to on my cwebber account, and had no way to recover, so I set up cwebber2... I might have figured out how to log back into cwebber again, but at that point ran into a conflict.... I might just need to do a minor 3-stack tower of hanoi of swapping around email accounts until I get cwebber reassigned # 16:51 Shane Hi all, not sure if I am going to find a socket to charge my laptop for the meeting. If I don't, I think the specs are ready for FPWD so +1 from me elf-pavlik and jasnell joined the channel
# 16:55 jtauber I won't be able to call in today but will on IRC to vote, etc RRSAgent joined the channel
# 16:57 RRSAgent trackbot, access must be one of public, group-strint-submission, offline-webapps-workshop-program-committee, group-webmobile-chairs, group-rdf-val-pc, alumni, group-payment-workshop-submissions, wstar, group-digipub-chairs, member, memberSearchers, group-csv-chairs, wsridirectors, i18n, valid, group-strint-pc, webcrypto, offices, w3f, mlw, group-wot-workshop-pc, team, webandtv-moderators, ab, group-share-psi, group-payment-workshop-pc, memberEditors, w[CUT] Zakim joined the channel
# 16:57 Zakim ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes # 16:57 RRSAgent Arnaud, access must be one of public, group-strint-submission, offline-webapps-workshop-program-committee, group-webmobile-chairs, group-rdf-val-pc, alumni, group-payment-workshop-submissions, wstar, group-digipub-chairs, member, memberSearchers, group-csv-chairs, wsridirectors, i18n, valid, group-strint-pc, webcrypto, offices, w3f, mlw, group-wot-workshop-pc, team, webandtv-moderators, ab, group-share-psi, group-payment-workshop-pc, memberEditors, wor[CUT] # 16:59 elf-pavlik sorry everyone, today IRC only once again :( (lost VPN and tried SIP in 3 different locaitons in last 3h, also Skype gift card friend sent me didn't arrived) # 16:59 bret anyone recomend a decent json formatter extension for firefox? # 17:00 Zakim sorry, Arnaud, I do not see a conference named 'soclwg' in progress or scheduled at this time AdamB joined the channel
Lloyd_Fassett and markus joined the channel
# 17:01 Zakim ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM # 17:01 Zakim On the phone I see jasnell, ??P1, ??P2, Arnaud, ??P5 # 17:01 Zakim the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus # 17:01 AdamB zakim, aaaa is AdamB # 17:02 Zakim On the phone I see jasnell, ??P1, Arnaud, ??P5, AdamB, wilkie, bret (muted), Lloyd_Fassett # 17:02 markus zakim, ??P13 is me Shane joined the channel
# 17:04 markus cwebber2 you need to type zakim, ??P1 is me # 17:04 bret is there a way to get Zakim to remember who you are? # 17:05 Zakim On the phone I see jasnell, cwebber2, Arnaud, Tsyesika, AdamB, wilkie, bret (muted), Lloyd_Fassett, markus, tantek, rhiaro (muted) # 17:05 Shane Zakim, what is the code # 17:05 Zakim I don't understand 'what is the code', Shane # 17:06 Zakim I don't understand your question, tantek. # 17:06 Zakim saw 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org) given for the conference code, elf-pavlik # 17:06 Zakim Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose wilkie # 17:06 markus zakim, ??P11 is me # 17:06 Zakim Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Tsyesika # 17:07 cwebber2 Tsyesika: don't worry, I did it last time because I was the noob also :) # 17:07 Shane Zakim, ??P15 is me # 17:07 wilkie I always assume machines hate me more than love me harry joined the channel
# 17:07 harry apologies, finishing up another meeting, calling in now # 17:07 Zakim the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry # 17:08 tantek Tsyesika: if you hear a French accent, it is likely Arnaud :) # 17:08 RRSAgent trackbot, access must be one of public, group-strint-submission, offline-webapps-workshop-program-committee, group-webmobile-chairs, group-rdf-val-pc, alumni, group-payment-workshop-submissions, wstar, group-digipub-chairs, member, memberSearchers, group-csv-chairs, wsridirectors, i18n, valid, group-strint-pc, webcrypto, offices, w3f, mlw, group-wot-workshop-pc, team, webandtv-moderators, ab, group-share-psi, group-payment-workshop-pc, memberEditors, w[CUT] # 17:08 Zakim ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start 8 minutes ago # 17:08 Shane Can I scribe next week please? I will not be able to make it for a few weeks afterwards while there is a timezone shift # 17:08 cwebber2 Arnaud: harry, come on, you show up 5 minutes later ;) # 17:08 Zakim sorry, harry, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller' # 17:09 Zakim On the phone I see jasnell, cwebber2, Arnaud, Tsyesika, AdamB, wilkie, bret (muted), Lloyd_Fassett, tantek, rhiaro (muted), markus, +1.703.485.aabb, Shane (muted), [IPcaller] # 17:09 cwebber2 Tsyesika: and if they were talking last time when you did Arnaud: you don't have to do it on the next message # 17:09 cwebber2 Tsyesika: also if talking for yourself, you might want to prefix your own name # 17:11 Lloyd_Fassett James Snell # 17:12 harry jasnell: I believe this is covered in the latest draft of AS 2.0 # 17:12 Tsyesika Arnaud: is closing action 2 as there is no objections # 17:13 jasnell speaks too quickly at times. Don't be afraid to throw something at him # 17:13 tantek general request: please state your name and IRC nickname slowly when you start speaking. # 17:13 harry It didn't seem to get too much review, but we can still publish at a FPWD as Working Drafts can still change of course. # 17:14 Tsyesika Arnaud: james has fixed some typo's in the draft and we're going to make a decision today on if we're going to publish this as the first public working draft today # 17:14 Zakim tantek, you wanted to ask about implementations # 17:14 Tsyesika Arnaud: there are two sections which are the main spec and the vocab spec, we decided not to publish the action spec as the first public working draft today # 17:14 Zakim elf-pavlik, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...' # 17:15 Shane I like that it specifies that multiple serialisations are allowed, despite not being defined in spec. # 17:15 Zakim sees elf-pavlik, jasnell on the speaker queue # 17:15 Tsyesika tantek: the spec looks good, but a question "Do we have any implementations which are keeping up with the spec, as in AS 2.0 as defined in the spec today" # 17:15 jasnell I will have an updated AS2 javascript implementation that produces and consumes AS2 in time for TPAC # 17:16 AdamB we are looking to move to produce and consume based on the new AS2 spec # 17:16 Tsyesika jasnell(i think): I will have a updated javascript and he's hoping to have an updated java version soon. # 17:17 AdamB we, being, Boeing # 17:17 Tsyesika jasnell: The current draft is defined so all AS 1.0 is compatabile with 2.0 # 17:18 tantek for the record, 0 implementations publishing AS2 as spec'd today, and 0 implementations consuming AS2 as spec'd today. # 17:18 Tsyesika jasnell: I have one working but... (sorry i missed that part?) # 17:18 tantek and plans to produce 1-2 implementations publishing and consuming AS2 as spec'd today. # 17:19 Tsyesika jasnell: said we can highlight the issues in response to elf-pavlik's question # 17:19 markus ok.. that also addresses my concern about the examples not referencing a context # 17:19 markus would still prefer it they did though # 17:19 Arnaud PROPOSED: Publish AS 2.0 spec as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) # 17:20 wilkie elf-pavlik: jasnell said that they would be included in the spec as yellow highlighted sections that link to the github issue I believe # 17:20 Arnaud RESOLVED: Publish AS 2.0 spec as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) # 17:20 Arnaud PROPOSED: Publish AS 2.0 Vocabulary spec as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) # 17:21 Shane +1 I have looked at vocab less but it can still change as a draft so yes :) # 17:21 harry yes, we can still get reviews in, this just puts the document on Rec-track # 17:21 Arnaud RESOLVED: Publish AS 2.0 Vocabulary spec as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) # 17:21 jasnell I would like to propose that we consider the Actions draft for publication on next weeks agenda # 17:22 Tsyesika Arnaud: because this is the first public working draft so the chairs have to ask the W3 staff for the first publication of the document # 17:22 markus jasnell, could we move the section on actions from the core spec to the Actions draft? # 17:23 Tsyesika Arnaud: this is because they want to make sure they want to make sure theres is a record of approal and a short name # 17:23 harry I'll help as well - there's a bunch of formatting tests (pubrules) # 17:23 Tsyesika Arnaud: the document needs proparing for publication and it needs to pass the validation tests # 17:24 harry So, this is the URI the doc will be known by # 17:24 Tsyesika Arnaud: suspects it'll probably take the next 2 weeks to get it published # 17:24 Shane tantek: Should the shortname not have the 2.0? Since there is already another version # 17:24 Tsyesika Arnaud: Wants to know what it would take to get the actions spec published today # 17:25 markus I like as-core etc. # 17:25 tantek jasnell, just noticed that activitystreams2-vocabulary.html lacks normative reference to HTML5 # 17:26 tantek not a big deal, but likely to be flagged by syspub before publishing # 17:26 Shane I would go for ActivityStreams2 and ActivityStreams-vocab personally. But doesn't really matter either way # 17:26 Tsyesika Arnaud: in response to the question on IRC about the shortnames there are some shortnames in the draft # 17:26 Shane *ActivityStreams2-vocab # 17:26 harry I'm happy to leave this decision to the editor # 17:26 harry Leaving off version number might help if we plan to do 2.1 # 17:26 jasnell no strong opinion, I'm open to whatever the group decides # 17:26 markus lets keep the shortname short :-) # 17:27 tantek markus, exactly, hence I suggested as-* instead of activitystreams-* # 17:27 Tsyesika Arnaud: wants to know if we should not have the 2.0 there # 17:27 markus yep tantek, I already said I like your proposal :-) # 17:27 jasnell +1 to omitting the version number in the short name # 17:28 harry but it doesn't really matter - only matters if we do 2.1 or 2.2 # 17:28 Tsyesika Arnaud: it seems like there is a general feeling we should keep off the version number # 17:28 markus +1 to ommitting the version number # 17:28 Shane I can see the reasoning to avoid the version, for newer versions # 17:29 cwebber2 could this bite us somehow if versioning needs to happen? # 17:29 Tsyesika Arnaud: hearing no objections, we will make that change to the short nmes # 17:30 Tsyesika Arnaud: people expressed last week that they weren't ready to publish actions yet # 17:30 Tsyesika tantek: at the time and still now, my objection, for activity streams we have quite a lot of implementation experiance but for action # 17:31 jasnell we have implementors for Actions but they are currently updating to the current version of the draft # 17:31 cwebber2 tantek: there hasn't been clear examples of implementations it seems yet? Does this make it preliminary to publish as a draft? # 17:32 cwebber2 jasnell: we do have implementers, but implementers of the draft... we don't have a current implementation, but do have implementation that has gone on # 17:32 Zakim On the phone I see jasnell, cwebber2, Arnaud, AdamB, wilkie, Lloyd_Fassett, tantek, rhiaro (muted), markus, +1.703.485.aabb, Shane (muted), hhalpin, bblfish, bret (muted), ??P5 # 17:32 cwebber2 no years of experience, but there has been some implementation work # 17:32 Tsyesika ( cwebber2 i'm back now so if you want i can take over ) # 17:32 cwebber2 tantek: (??) I'd like to have that documented on the wiki # 17:32 Shane I would like to see examples of some of them, such as how and what BrowserView is used for (the notes help but aren't completely explanatory) # 17:33 harry +1 having evidence before going to Last Call, ideally as soon as possible # 17:33 Tsyesika jasnell: is saying there is there are implemntations we can draw from # 17:34 Tsyesika jasnell: if we need to hold off and wait a little while until we see more implementations, that's fine # 17:34 harry That's why I was saying implementation evidence *will* happen # 17:34 Tsyesika Arnaud: we're only talking about the first publication of the action spec not the last call # 17:34 jasnell I'm far less concerned about implementation experience for FPWD # 17:35 Arnaud STRAWPOLL: are you interested in the AS Actions spec? # 17:35 tantek how about are you interested in *implementing* it? # 17:35 Tsyesika Arnaud: there is no requirement to have an implementation for a public working draft # 17:36 Shane +0 I understand the reasoning behind some of it, but others I would need examples for to be interested in those particular actions # 17:36 harry Note that typically the W3C tries to get implementation experience as soon as possible now, althogh it's not formally required for FPWD (it's only required to exit CR) # 17:36 jasnell btw, I plan on discussion the motivations behind actions in detail at TPAC # 17:37 Tsyesika bblfish: has anyone looked in with how this fits in with LDP as it's a W3C standard? # 17:38 Tsyesika jasnell: There is definitely more work that needs to be done on this, and there is some overlap with LDP? # 17:38 Tsyesika Arnaud: there is some interest around the spec, tantek what would it take for you to remove your objections # 17:38 bret I'm curious to hear Evan's take on actions # 17:39 Tsyesika tantek: wants to know for those who have +1ed, why are you interested in a spec which has no implementations # 17:39 harry I think its good to get some FPWDs out there just to focus the discussion - but I am not voting on this one :) # 17:39 jasnell we (IBM) views Actions as the evolution of the Embedded Experiences work, which was part of the initial contribution that created this WG # 17:39 Zakim bblfish, listening for 17 seconds I heard sound from the following: Tyesika (14%), tantek (64%) # 17:40 Tsyesika Arnaud: does anyone want to say why they're interested in the action spec # 17:40 bret Tsyesika: np ;) your doing good work! # 17:40 jasnell I will address our motivations for actions at tpac # 17:40 tantek as a group we're supposed to focus on standardizing areas with implementation experience # 17:40 tantek why are those who are +1ing without documented evidence expecting the group to work on this? # 17:40 harry My opinion is FPWDs are good to start to focus discussion # 17:40 harry I expect implementation to come along, and would be worried if they didn't. # 17:41 wilkie it's a working draft. I don't expect a implementation to be in sync with the draft. the actions spec gives a level of extensibility that is very useful to explain to software how activities can be generated. I've discussed on the github issue tracker about making that extensibility a usecase and it seems like it is a focus. good! :) # 17:41 Tsyesika Arnaud: the charter doesn't prohibit us from going further with this even though there is no implementation # 17:42 Arnaud I didn't say "prior art" but "state of the art" # 17:42 wilkie if a system can know how actions relate to activities, a system can perform actions and thus generate activities it has no prior knowledge of, which is very interesting. # 17:42 Tsyesika jasnell: the use cases are what is driving this. When we're talking about mobile push notifications we're doing very similiar things, we're trying to pull pieces from a number of different areas. This isn't something we're not just pulling out of the air # 17:43 bblfish q+ is there a list of actions use cases somewhere? # 17:43 Zakim bblfish, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...' # 17:43 bblfish q+ - is there a list of actions use cases somewhere? # 17:43 Zakim bblfish, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...' # 17:43 bblfish q+, is there a list of actions use cases somewhere? # 17:43 Zakim bblfish, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...' # 17:43 bblfish q+ re: is there a list of actions use cases somewhere? # 17:43 Tsyesika Arnaud: if tantek is the only one to object, we will try to address the objections but if not we will try to move past the objection # 17:43 Zakim bblfish, you wanted to discuss is there a list of actions use cases somewhere? # 17:43 harry Then the W3C will try to see if folks in WG have done their best and consider the formal objection. # 17:43 jasnell Tantek: I'm not interested in just pushing something to recommendation that no one uses, I'm interested in working a useful spec that folks can use. # 17:44 harry Use-case discussion is IG BTW in general. # 17:44 Loqi harry meant to say: Use-case discussion is IG BTW in general. # 17:44 jasnell and only pushing to recommendation when there are implementations that demonstrate the value # 17:44 harry bblfish, the use-cases are in the Social XG # 17:44 Shane I think that claim was in reference to IBM? # 17:44 Tsyesika harry: it might be in a different group but we should be able to know them # 17:44 tantek I agree with bblfish's line of questioning - where is the URL to use-cases for Actions? # 17:45 Loqi harry meant to say: Tsyesika, that is bblfish speaking. # 17:45 Shane If the IG can give us use-cases then we can make examples that match the spec to the use-cases, which I think would be enough to go to FPWD # 17:46 cwebber2 I need better understanding of how actions come into place, but I think we might be able to make some strong use cases of how we'd be interested in implementing in mediagoblin, *if* I understand right... would someone be interested in discussing how actions are intended to be used with Tsyesika and I, and we might say how we may or may not be able to make use of it? # 17:46 bret I would like to see more working action examples, not necessary up to date with AS2 spec # 17:46 Tsyesika tantek: I'm just calling into question how we as a group have so much interest this without any use cases # 17:47 Zakim sees jasnell, bblfish on the speaker queue # 17:47 harry We have a dedicated phone call for use-cases in IG I expect people should attend who are intersted in use-cases. # 17:48 bret elf-pavlik: is there a list of documented uses in the wild that I can review? # 17:48 Tsyesika bblfish: I plan to discuss more of our motivations of our actions at TPAC, the embedded experiances is discussed in our charter, we view actions as an evolution of that and we can't ignore that history. We should look back at the embedded experiances for the use cases and I will discuss this more at TPAC # 17:48 tantek Arnaud, you said you expect to see use-cases before we work on something, yet you did not ask for a URL to those. That is what is confusing me. # 17:49 tantek bblfish: "The question has to be, what are the use-cases?" # 17:50 harry Yes, and there's a phone call for use-cases bblfish, please attend. # 17:50 Shane I agree that we don't need to develop them, but we should have some to discuss # 17:50 bret elf-pavlik: ty will check it out after the call # 17:50 Tsyesika bblfish: We don't need to have implementations for all drafts, if there is no implementations, how do we go about how to solve the problem we want to solve. We have to have the use cases to be able to discuss if the poposal is good # 17:50 harry However, use-cases are often imaginary and running code *with users* trumps use-cases. # 17:50 tantek deferring work does not mean we remove the requirement # 17:51 harry I don't think Tantek's objection is over use-cases, its over running code. # 17:51 Tsyesika tantek: i believe there is push back on use cases here is because there are so many topics with use cases that we need to address and if people want to work on topics which don't have documented use cases you can go do that in the IG # 17:52 Tsyesika tantek: i find it suprising that this group wants to work on something without use cases, i think if even was here he'd push back too as he doesn't want to work on things without use cases # 17:52 harry tantek, if you want to do use-cases, there's an IG phone call that needs folks to pick up that work. # 17:52 tantek no documented use-cases = we shouldn't work on it in this WG # 17:52 Shane Zakim, ??P4 is me # 17:52 Tsyesika Arnaud: it's not resnable to participate without use cases # 17:53 Tsyesika Arnaud: i imagine people are interested in working on it is there are undocumented use cases which this addresses, i think we should make sure use cases are documented # 17:54 Tsyesika tantek: it's resnable for us as chairs to reject the idea if they haven't documented the use cases. If instead we lower the bar and just go by popular vote, there is no insentive to document the use cases # 17:54 Shane Yep I completely agree # 17:54 Tsyesika Arnaud: i think tantek's point is valid, we should get a at least a minimal list of use cases documented # 17:55 Tsyesika Lloyd_Fassett: I'm with the IG, an update: we meet every other week, we're meeting tomorrow. We are on track to deliver use cases by TPAC. # 17:55 Tsyesika Arnaud: hopefully the situation will improve as the IG deliveres on this task, then we can look at if this poposal fits the bill or not # 17:56 Tsyesika Arnaud: for the last 5 minutes, is there any issues that jasnell wants to discuss with the group # 17:56 Tsyesika jasnell: no, not with the time we have left, nothing that would be a blocker. Recomend taking another good look at the spec, there is a test version of the JSON-LD context (link on mailing list) # 17:57 Tsyesika Arnaud: unless anyone wants to bring up anything last minute we can adjourn # 17:58 bblfish Who said they had done research on LDP and what is going on here? # 17:58 cwebber2 Tsyesika: it's pretty easy, it's pandoc + a small amount of manual editing :) # 17:58 wilkie at least skype had the decency to drop my call at the very end :) # 17:59 Shane Thank you :) Goodbye all! # 17:59 elf-pavlik cwebber2, thanks for passing on skills you just gained a week ago :) # 17:59 Zakim Attendees were jasnell, Arnaud, +1.314.777.aaaa, wilkie, AdamB, Lloyd_Fassett, bret, markus, tantek, rhiaro, cwebber2, Tsyesika, +1.703.485.aabb, Shane, hhalpin, bblfish, Tyesika # 17:59 Zakim sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is # 17:59 Zakim sorry, tantek, I do not see a conference named 'Social' in progress or scheduled at this time # 17:59 Zakim sorry, tantek, I do not see a conference named 'socialwg' in progress or scheduled at this time # 18:01 cwebber2 most of it will already be there, but it takes a small amount of editing # 18:01 cwebber2 this way you create the official wiki record of the meeting # 18:01 tantek and then, post here in the channel when it's up and ask people to fix typos # 18:08 bret never done haskell paas before though # 18:09 tantek bret - seemed like an obvious one, thus it's likely running *somewhere* ? # 18:09 tantek like on some heroku or appengine or something # 18:27 Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next # 18:28 tantek I'd like to create that issue, and have it included/highlighted in the spec (as has been suggested for all issues), but I wanted to ask you first if you were ok with processing higher-level issues like that in github issues. # 18:28 tantek !tell jasnell I'd like to create that issue ("AS2 core is not as minimal as it could be."), and have it included/highlighted in the spec (as has been suggested for all issues), but I wanted to ask you first if you were ok with processing higher-level issues like that in github issues. # 18:28 Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next # 18:29 tantek Tsyesika: your call, you can wait a while for folks to respond first in IRC if you like, or you can go ahead. # 18:29 Tsyesika i plan to head off soon i've been working for about 10/11 hours :P # 18:32 Tsyesika okay i will mail the mailing list hopefully what i put up there is alright # 18:32 Loqi tantek meant to say: Tsyesika: ouch! ok one typo # 18:36 tantek yes - feel free to email it out at your convenience # 18:37 tantek definitely good enough to have people review! # 18:37 tantek Tsyesika++ nicely done with your first time minuting! # 18:49 Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next bblfish and caseorganic joined the channel
# 19:57 Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next # 20:01 Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed caseorganic joined the channel
# 20:05 tantek !tell harry,wseltzer as an example of why, that w3.org/Social page links " Federated Social Web" to http://d-cent.org/fsw2011/ which is a dead link (and site appears dead too). Which no one can fix without W3C bureaucracy. On a wiki any of us could fix it. # 20:05 Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next harry, bblfish, elf-pavlik and bblfish_ joined the channel
jasnell-github [w3c-socialwg-activitystreams] jasnell closed pull request #31: Fix a few simple typos (gh-pages...typos) http://git.io/_MmjOw
tantek awesome! add yourself to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Irc-people
bret agenda for the day https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-10-14
cwebber2 Arnaud: I think the trouble I ran into was I couldn't figure out what I had switched my password to on my cwebber account, and had no way to recover, so I set up cwebber2... I might have figured out how to log back into cwebber again, but at that point ran into a conflict.... I might just need to do a minor 3-stack tower of hanoi of swapping around email accounts until I get cwebber reassigned
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/14-social-irc
elf-pavlik sorry everyone, today IRC only once again :( (lost VPN and tried SIP in 3 different locaitons in last 3h, also Skype gift card friend sent me didn't arrived)
Arnaud Proposed: Approval of Minutes of 7 October 2014 Teleconf http://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-10-07-minutes
harry So an example of shortname is: http://www.w3.org/TR/WebCryptoAPI/
wilkie it's a working draft. I don't expect a implementation to be in sync with the draft. the actions spec gives a level of extensibility that is very useful to explain to software how activities can be generated. I've discussed on the github issue tracker about making that extensibility a usecase and it seems like it is a focus. good! :)
Tsyesika bblfish: I plan to discuss more of our motivations of our actions at TPAC, the embedded experiances is discussed in our charter, we view actions as an evolution of that and we can't ignore that history. We should look back at the embedded experiances for the use cases and I will discuss this more at TPAC
jasnell Based on a much older draft.. but.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th_7l1rJ1fA