#social 2015-07-06
2015-07-06 UTC
jasnell joined the channel
# melvster this page is nice work : http://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories/Groupings
KevinMarks, jasnell, bblfish, tilgovi and the_frey joined the channel
# elf-pavlik well, Indie Web has live deploymens of basic ones like 'posting a note', 'posting a photo' etc.
jaywink joined the channel
# elf-pavlik melvster, if you would like to step up to help with tracking implementations i believe everyone would appreciate it
# elf-pavlik well, enough if you keep track on what you implemented in a way the whole group can easily find it and aggregate with what other people have already implemented
# elf-pavlik i hope i can have demo of WebID-TLS authentication with OAuth Bearer Tokens authorization https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-APIs-Brainstorming#bearer-tokens
# elf-pavlik i think this can align SoLiD and other two even closer
# elf-pavlik it also nicely separates resource server from authorization server and we look at indieauth that person can also specify service used for verifying identity
# elf-pavlik which in turn can support WebID-TLS, Persona, OpenID Connect etc.
# elf-pavlik i still need to chew more on OAuth confidential vs. public clients
# elf-pavlik since clients with backend (e.g. most micropub clients as of now) clasify ans confidential ones, while those running fully in a browser (e.g. most SoLiD clients as of now) clasify as pluibic ones ...
# elf-pavlik s/pluibic/public/
# elf-pavlik needs to run soon
bblfish and Arnaud joined the channel
# Loqi Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-06-30-minutes]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84923&oldid=84900
# Loqi Alehors made 2 edits to [[Socialwg]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84925&oldid=84810
# Loqi Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-07-07]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84926&oldid=0
bblfish joined the channel
# Loqi Alehors made 3 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-07-07]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84930&oldid=84926
# Loqi Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-07-07]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84931&oldid=84930
jasnell joined the channel
tilgovi joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme hello cwebber2
# ben_thatmustbeme lots of AS2 discussion for tomorrow thus far
# elf-pavlik ben_thatmustbeme, would you like to try https://elf-pavlik.github.io/unmpc/?url=https://phubble.tuxed.net/w3c-social/
# elf-pavlik they both use this data for very primitive way of defining ACL
# elf-pavlik oops! i noticed nasty bug :( to see alice-b-day secret wall one can't easily sign in (get auhorization token) first ...
# ben_thatmustbeme elf-pavlik: i don't even know what i'm supposed to do with that
tilgovi joined the channel
# elf-pavlik you can post to shared spaces, a public one https://phubble.tuxed.net/w3c-social/ and a secret one https://phubble.tuxed.net/alice-b-day/
# elf-pavlik you can try directly or via unmpc, both works similar now
# elf-pavlik to my surprise we possibly didn't capture common use cases like https://twitter.com/SocialWebWG
melvster joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme ahh, elf-pavlik there it goes, the link wasn't working before, all i got was the 2 input boxes and the sign in one was grayed out
# ben_thatmustbeme melvster: regarding user stories, have you seen
# ben_thatmustbeme i need to review if we resolved on it or not, but i THINK that we said the 7 entirely positive ones are approved
# ben_thatmustbeme in addition to SWAT0
# ben_thatmustbeme true, its rather difficult to know that. Honestly many of the user stories have parts implemented in indieweb
# ben_thatmustbeme thats why i don't go by strictly counts of +1's etc
# ben_thatmustbeme a lot of people put things like "+1 but" or "+1 on the condition that"
# ben_thatmustbeme can't require friends either
# ben_thatmustbeme all of twitter would say so
# ben_thatmustbeme and G+
# ben_thatmustbeme and actually FB has moved to that model of "friending but ignoring all their content"
# ben_thatmustbeme which is interesting actually. friending and following are two seperate things.
# ben_thatmustbeme but again, if we are looking for a small set of common cases, friending isn't that popular
# ben_thatmustbeme melvster: read those again, MANY of those +1s are saying +1 but it should be one-way
# ben_thatmustbeme no, there are 0's that makes it not "all positive"
# ben_thatmustbeme yes, and there is a 0 vote
# ben_thatmustbeme 0 Unsure both how valuable it is and if it's really something to do at the API level. Also does Tammy unfriending Jeremy stop Jeremy following Tammy (so he'd get objects shared to Public or those Following her?) Jessica Tallon (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
# ben_thatmustbeme the non-clarity of the use-case is then a great reason to down vote it
# ben_thatmustbeme remember these are votes on the USER STORY, not on the functionality
# ben_thatmustbeme these are not votes to include / not include functionality. many were downvoted because the user story was not clear / specific
# ben_thatmustbeme does not mean there is not any room to improve them and get rid of downvotes
# ben_thatmustbeme an acid test is supposed to be difficult to implement
# ben_thatmustbeme is it not
# ben_thatmustbeme how long did it take browsers to pass ACID3?
# ben_thatmustbeme hell chrome still gets only a 98% here
the_frey joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme actually... i think we can do SWAT0 now. I need to check my reference of tagging. but i can post a photo in mobilepub and tag it with aaronpk i think. i might need to add that field
# aaronpk we have a pretty thorough writeup here https://indiewebcamp.com/SWAT0
# ben_thatmustbeme melvster: # of +1s was originally said not important
# ben_thatmustbeme there were so many we said you don't need to vote on all
# ben_thatmustbeme okay, so nothing has been "disapproved yet" they just have not been approved YET
# ben_thatmustbeme anything that has +0s we want to look at closer and see "why not a +1" before we approve
# ben_thatmustbeme there is no dependance on other user stories, only on functionality they describe
# ben_thatmustbeme thats fine, they require an "inbox" functionality, something i'm not sure it really clearly specified. but the "Inbox" user story in one of an infinite set of user stories that can be used to describe such a feature
# ben_thatmustbeme also, maybe "inbox" is not needed as a user story at all as its existance is specified by there being a user story that requires it
# ben_thatmustbeme so then explore, try things out
# ben_thatmustbeme see what makes sense and come back to us on that
# ben_thatmustbeme this isn't "here's your assignment" type of stuff. its exploratory coding.
# ben_thatmustbeme melvster: nothing is fully defined yet. we are in the process of defining them. the user stories are something to give us a direction of user interaction, they are not specs, should not be treated as specs
# ben_thatmustbeme if you want to work with indiewebcamp we don't really use inboxes, just send webmentions to pages. Pump.io does use them, they specify them. or make your own and see how that works
# ben_thatmustbeme test out various implementations
# ben_thatmustbeme based on our implementations its not needed
# ben_thatmustbeme true, webmention endpoints are basically indieweb equivalent of them
# ben_thatmustbeme whats the difference. it isn't specified
# ben_thatmustbeme until we actually create a spec, sure.
# ben_thatmustbeme i think a single "inbox" for a whole social network could work
# ben_thatmustbeme would allow bridging in to silos
# ben_thatmustbeme if a webmention endpoint is an indieweb version of an inbox, then thats exactly what webmention.io is
# ben_thatmustbeme good question to ask. spam is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed, but not sure its within the scope of the group. tantek had proposed a very interesting way to severely cripple spam in webmention with "vouch"
# ben_thatmustbeme which is actually running on my site already, aaron's too i believe
# ben_thatmustbeme also spam filtering is pretty good on its own
# aaronpk it's worth reading http://indiewebcamp.com/vouch
# aaronpk "The request requires user authentication. The response MUST include a WWW-Authenticate header field" http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html
# melvster aaronpk: consider a postage stamp ... you send it and pay for that ... but now imagine the end user sees your postage stamp, sees it's NOT spam, and doesnt cash it ... but you're thru the spam filter ... now a spammer would spend money on the stamp, but if it's spam the end user cashes it, providing a disincentive to spam ...
bblfish joined the channel
# rhiaro I'd just like to throw in that I agree a webmention endpoint is equivalent to an inbox endpoint (as specified by ActivityPump). The difference being that AP also specifies some things a server should do once it receives something at the inbox endpoint, whereas webmention doesn't. Note, AP doesn't have a good solution to spam either
# ben_thatmustbeme would "accidently" just accept all money anyway :P
# ben_thatmustbeme haha
# ben_thatmustbeme also a bit of limitation of automating things then
# ben_thatmustbeme #tooManySimilies
# ben_thatmustbeme actually the party similie was exactly how vouch was named
the_frey joined the channel
# rhiaro melvster: have you seen https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypump/blob/master/implementation.md ? AP is still ongoing work, but I feel it might align with an LDP backend
# ben_thatmustbeme very different technologies
# ben_thatmustbeme webmention vs inbox
# ben_thatmustbeme in indieweb/solid/pump
# ben_thatmustbeme well an archive, and thats not really an answer, i think the answer was some time ago.
# ben_thatmustbeme rhiaro: i am no where near as familiar as you would be, but from what i understand, an inbox gets sent activity data directly, json encoded
# ben_thatmustbeme and webmention endpoint requires extra poll to verify data, doesn't trust the message
# rhiaro An inbox endpoint as currently specified by AP expects the full post/activity(/whatever, all the content + metadata) whereas webmention just expects the URL. But webmention then goes to pull the post itself to verify. AP verfies the post based on what it's sent. So same principle, just different implementation
# ben_thatmustbeme melvster: its unlikely you will interoperate with everyone right now. the goal is to create a standard for interoperation in the future. You don't care about the brand, good. those are the current groups that have things working in various amounts of cobbled together implementation. You say you want to implement user stories, but you have it the wrong way around, what is implmented right now is sort of the bootstrapping for the future, we
# ben_thatmustbeme implment, find what works and what doesn't, then we spec so that future implementations don't have a bad spec. So what exactly do you want to implement? Do you want to interoperate with current groups? pick one to start learning how those people are doing it. Do you want to build something new and experiment, excellent, try something new entirely and make notes of how it goes
# ben_thatmustbeme our work in implementing is what is informing our decisions in creating the spec/user stories which will then lead to interoperable implementations.
# KevinMarks we have useful things working; please participate
# ben_thatmustbeme i have queue entries, so i return a URL to those, even though they don't last
# ben_thatmustbeme but thats a queue, not a webmention. webmentions don't actually exist, its a post request
# ben_thatmustbeme s/its a/its Just a/
bblfish joined the channel
# KevinMarks the way to resolve that maybe is to implement webmentions and see how they map to your inbox data model
# KevinMarks do webmention callers do much with the return value?
# melvster aaronpk: if it was a standard id know where to look, i was reading : https://github.com/converspace/webmention/blob/master/README.md
shepazu joined the channel
the_frey joined the channel
# melvster aaronpk: i was looking at http://webmention.org/ ... hard to know that was the WRONG url
shepazu joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme not for me
# ben_thatmustbeme we should work out something that works best and standardize on that
# ben_thatmustbeme not create a spec that puts a lot of work on the implementer
tantek joined the channel
KevinMarks joined the channel
# tantek melvster - RESTful meh http://indiewebcamp.com/RESTful#Criticism
# tantek melvster: you said "only care about the WEB ... and how it can be social …" http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-07-06/line/1436213594650 - in that case, could you add yourself with link to your *social* *WEB* site to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Irc-people ?
# tantek melvster re: "we've already decided to use activity streams, right? / i thought that was consensus?" http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-07-06#t1436216690289 - not quite, we have consensus on *publishing* AS as a W3C draft, which means we have consensus to publicly discuss it as a work item of the Social Web WG.
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-07-07]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84955&oldid=84931
# aaronpk the wordpress plugin is doing well too https://wordpress.org/plugins/micropub/
# tantek e.g. here's some "published" JSON if you like: http://pin13.net/mf2/?url=http://werd.io/ (building upon what aaronpk just gave you)
# tantek sure, the "me" relation is used to reference other URLs that also represent the same person. see also: http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-me
KevinMarks joined the channel
jasnell, melvster, jasnell_ and bblfish joined the channel