#social 2016-09-22

2016-09-22 UTC
jasnell, KevinMarks, jasnell_, KevinMarks2, jungbin, ben_thatmustbeme, harry, shepazu and KjetilK joined the channel
#
cwebber2
quiet room!
#
aaronpk
Tantek and I are on our way over
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: cool
timbl, jungbin, tsyesika and mmiya joined the channel
paulj and tantek joined the channel
#
tantek
trackbot, start meeting
#
trackbot
is preparing a teleconference.
RRSAgent joined the channel
#
trackbot
RRSAgent, make logs public
#
RRSAgent
I have made the request, trackbot
Zakim and paulcj joined the channel
#
trackbot
Zakim, this will be SOCL
#
Zakim
ok, trackbot
#
trackbot
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
#
trackbot
Date: 22 September 2016
jungkees joined the channel
#
tantek
good morning #social! day 1 of the f2f is starting.
lescarr joined the channel
#
rhiaro
present+
#
cwebber2
present+
#
tantek
present+
#
KjetilK
present+
#
aaronpk
present+
#
paulcj
present +
tkim joined the channel
#
tsyesika
present+
#
tsyesika
I can hear you
#
cwebber2
fabulous
#
bigbluehat
Present+ Benjamin_Young
#
bigbluehat
scribenick: bigbluehat
#
csarven
present+
#
bigbluehat
Topic: Agenda item scheduling
harry joined the channel
#
Loqi
Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)
#
bigbluehat
tantek: great work everyone on the demos yesterday
#
bigbluehat
...first time I've seen a WG demo so many of their working drafts
#
bigbluehat
...think we have 5?
#
bigbluehat
sandro: depends on how you count
#
bigbluehat
tantek: Anne put up a great photo of the breakout
#
rhiaro
s/Anne/AnnB
#
bigbluehat
...the demos yesterday did a great job of heading off divisive discussions
#
bigbluehat
...thanks to everyone for making the environment so much better
#
bigbluehat
...we have a review request from I18N and a schedule meeting with them today
#
bigbluehat
...how long rhiaro?
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: an hour
#
bigbluehat
tantek: they'll be reviewing AS2 and activitypub with them?
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: I'm not sure what ActivityPub will need that isn't covered by AS2
#
bigbluehat
tantek: but we'll show them just the same to be sure it's covered
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: there might be a few things in Web Mention about the responses
#
bigbluehat
...and that might also effect LDN
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: we do need to file a formal request for LDN and (??)
#
bigbluehat
tantek: if we did 10 minute per spec, that'd be an hour
#
bigbluehat
...this afternoon I and sandro I believe need to go to the AC meeting
#
bigbluehat
...we are meeting until 3 pm today
#
bigbluehat
...unless we somehow setup Evan to remote chair
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: we go to them, right?
#
bigbluehat
...can the other groups chair for the group meetings?
#
bigbluehat
sandro: yeah. that could work.
#
bigbluehat
tantek: I don't think I need to be there for the I18N discussions
#
bigbluehat
...I believe I've shared my opinions already and those can be relayed
#
bigbluehat
...now that we've discussed that bit...we should go back and do introductions
#
bigbluehat
...Amy can update the agenda since she's working on scheduling the other groups
#
bigbluehat
...Let's pop back to intros
#
tantek
Tantek Çelik, chair, Mozilla, also on the AB
#
sandro
sandro: Sandro Hawke, W3C / MIT
kaorumaeda joined the channel
#
cwebber2
I'm Chris Webber, I'm an editor of ActivityPub, I work on MediaGoblin as motivation, and I'm an invited expert in the group
#
Loqi
Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)
#
paulcj
Paul Jeong, HTML5 Forum in Korea, making korean local social web standard using W3C standard
#
aaronpk
Aaron Parecki, editor of Webmention and Micropub
#
KjetilK
Kjetil Kjernsmo, Observer, old-time semwebber, worked with social media in the past, trying to get back into the area of decentralized social media
#
bigbluehat
Benjamin Young, co-editor of the Web Annotation spec, interested in AS2 and LDN for their use in Web Annotation
#
bigbluehat
csarven might want to re-post without the "/me"
#
kaorumaeda
Kaoru Maeda, Observer
#
csarven
I'm Sarven Capadisli http://csarven.ca/#i , editor of https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/ . Invited expert. Working on https://dokie.li/
#
bigbluehat
tantek: I18N is in 1.05--right next door
#
rhiaro
Amy Guy, W3C/MIT/University of Edinburgh, staff contact, Social Web Protocols, LDN
#
bigbluehat
at 15:30
#
bigbluehat
s/at 15:30/...at 15:30
#
bigbluehat
...our end of day will be at 16:30
#
tsyesika
I'll just write mine here: I'm Jessica Tallon (on hangouts), I am a co-editor on ActivityPub, and invited expert in the group and have done a lot of work on GNU Mediagoblin's federation
#
bigbluehat
...we have some time to discuss strategy for the next 3 months--which takes us to the end of the charter
#
rhiaro
tsyesika o/
#
bigbluehat
...after that we have blocks of time for our various CRs
#
tsyesika
waves at rhiaro
#
bigbluehat
...I scheduled things partly around evan's schedule--he'll hopefully be awake by then
#
bigbluehat
...first thing I have is ActivityPub and then LDN and then Post Type Discovery after that...because I'll be here
#
bigbluehat
...PUbSubHubbub will be tomorrow
dan joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
...and then finish with a "what's next?" tomorrow
#
bigbluehat
...anything else?
#
cwebber2
waves at tsyesika, good to have you dialing in :)
#
bigbluehat
...then let's go on to strategy for the next 3 months
#
bigbluehat
Topic: Strategy for the next 3 months
#
tsyesika
waves at cwebber2 also :) Good to be here again
#
bigbluehat
tantek: we have several CRs and a few WDs that are pretty advanced
#
bigbluehat
...we have another that is FPWD state, but has several implementations
#
bigbluehat
...our goal--our a proposed straw goal--is to get all of these to TR before the end of our charter
#
bigbluehat
...I think we have a decent chance to do that
#
bigbluehat
...having multiple docs to push through the process at various times, has proved useful for getting things out the door
#
bigbluehat
...I think we can continue that pattern over the next 3 months
#
bigbluehat
...I think it's achievable
#
bigbluehat
...the biggest unknowns are:
#
bigbluehat
...Sufficient Test Suites
#
bigbluehat
...and sufficient implementation coverage to show to W3C Management
#
bigbluehat
sandro: we also need public wide review and horizontal review
#
harry
Sorry, had to leave TPAC to help teach a course, but note that I spoke re Pubsubhubbub with DanBri, who is close with BradFitz (Pubsubhubbub original author).
#
bigbluehat
tantek: yes! that's a big requirement.
#
bigbluehat
...I'd like to underscore that
#
harry
I would follow up with danbri, but he said as long as it's clear Google is not endorsing the work or the WG, he can speak with BradFitz over RF licensing.
#
bigbluehat
sandro: apparently 3 months before CR is when you go out for horizontal review
#
harry
So if any of you are at TPAC (particularly sandro/rhiaro), talk with Danbri.
#
bigbluehat
tantek: yeah...that was several yester-months ago
#
rhiaro
s/apparently/plh said
#
bigbluehat
...at this point, we'd like to get horizontal review ASAP
#
rhiaro
thanks harry, will do. julien is joining us for the meeting tomorrow
#
bigbluehat
...especially since they're kind of a pair, those requests should go out this week
#
bigbluehat
sandro: definitely this week
#
bigbluehat
tantek: is that something sandro or rhiaro can cover?
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: it depends on who you're asking
shepazu joined the channel
#
harry
Yes, I think Wendy would red-flag going forward with Pubsubhubbub if there's no contributor agreement from the original author, unless Julien didn't use any of BradFitz's original text.
#
bigbluehat
sandro: yes. the staff contacts can help
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: but the speed is groups is different and several of them have pre-requisite self-review
#
bigbluehat
s/rhiaro:/...
#
bigbluehat
tantek: I think we should give them warning at least that we're coming
#
bigbluehat
...and estimates of when we expect to take them to CR
#
wseltzer
[note it's not a question of text, but features for RF patent commitment]
#
bigbluehat
...so that we don't ask for review last minute as we'd done before
#
bigbluehat
sandro: we could say "we're ready to go to CR, modulo your review then great"
#
bigbluehat
sandro: tantek: in two weeks
#
bigbluehat
sandro: then we can try and push these through faster
#
bigbluehat
csarven: how do select who to get reviewed by?
#
bigbluehat
sandro: it's based on our own needs, but if we don't get any then there are problems
#
bigbluehat
tantek: correct. If there aren't external reviews, then W3C Management will be unhappy
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: who should we find for external review
#
bigbluehat
sandro: the farther away the better
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: k. trying to decide who to contact
#
bigbluehat
...someone from Pump.io has recently dug into ActivityPub and heavily reviewed it already
#
bigbluehat
sandro: yeah. that's perfect.
#
bigbluehat
tantek: generally I think we've taken the approach of generally useful pieces for other groups--often external
#
cwebber2
s/dug into ActivityPub/dug into ActivityStreams and (to a lesser extent) ActivityPub/
#
bigbluehat
...if you expect your spec is the foundation for someone else, then be sure they're part of the review
#
bigbluehat
tnx cwebber2 !
#
bigbluehat
...Web Annotation, for instance should review LDN if their considering recommending it
boris_anthony joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
sandro: ideally, this sort of things has gone on for 3 years
#
bigbluehat
...but in the case of these new specs, we're down to the 3 months
hadleybeeman joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
tantek: right, so greater encouragement to review is needed
#
sandro
(and that
#
bigbluehat
...wider and great horizontal review is the most critical thing at this point
#
sandro
(and that's when it's most important to get wide review)
#
harry
wseltzer, yes the concepts/features are more or less the same as BradFitz's spec.
#
bigbluehat
...and we're also dependent on other people to get back to us
tzviya joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: so. I'm trying to figure out when we should have people get back to us
#
harry
However, I also think some of text is his as well, so it makes to get a RF. BradFitz isn't against, he just doesn't see the point or any advantages of standardization, but DanBri or Julien could likely discuss.
#
bigbluehat
tantek: I think if you have a sense of what's optional, at risk, etc, then you're ready for wide review
#
bigbluehat
...there's a list of standard horizontal reviews and rhiaro is going to share that list
#
wseltzer
[harry, let's take this discussion offline. we discourage patent discussion in WGs]
#
bigbluehat
...I'm happy to connect editors to others folks in other WGs if they want review from
#
bigbluehat
s/if/that
#
bigbluehat
sandro: we can also check into some of the community groups--though many of them lie fallow
#
bigbluehat
paulcj: was curious about community groups and handling on going specs
#
bigbluehat
tantek: yes. we want to discuss that, probably tomorrow, along with the recharter discussion
#
bigbluehat
...which is scheduled at 15:30
#
bigbluehat
paulcj: sadly, I'm not here tomorrow.
#
bigbluehat
sandro: to your question, we can revise our specs after we've shipped them
#
bigbluehat
...but we can use the CG to discuss them, and work toward a later recharter if we find it's needed
#
bigbluehat
tantek: we can continue to do information guides and anything informative in a CG
#
bigbluehat
...one of the things we did to AS2, was have it processed down to zero issues
#
bigbluehat
..and then sent a wider request for input for a "last call" on filing issues
#
bigbluehat
...I'd like to get the thoughts from the editors on how to handle issues
#
bigbluehat
...and whether or not this would work
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I like this in theory, but two weeks is not a lot of time
#
bigbluehat
...and I want to be sure there's enough time to get feedback
#
bigbluehat
sandro: yeah. the goal is more "is it ready to start implementing"
#
bigbluehat
...there used to be a "last call" step and it still feels like it's missing
#
bigbluehat
tantek: yeah, and that's now part of CR
#
bigbluehat
...and that's more or less what we're proposing here
#
bigbluehat
...bringing that back with this 2-week window / "last call" period
#
bigbluehat
...I'd like to get a temperature gauge on this idea
#
bigbluehat
...seeing some head nods
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: yep.
#
bigbluehat
tantek: k. let's plan to do this in mid october
#
bigbluehat
sandro: 2-weeks from now is Oct 6.
#
bigbluehat
tantek: so. let's put that down and talk to the rest of the WG, that we'll do this 2-week window
#
bigbluehat
...our goal is to say "proposed: take XYZ to CR" and get a round of +1's and push for horizontal review, etc.
#
bigbluehat
...and the horizontal reviews is a different matter
#
bigbluehat
...they might take 2 months
#
bigbluehat
...so we'll give them a different window
#
bigbluehat
sandro: is post type discovery ready for this process?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: it depends on my time, but I think it'd fall just behind that schedule, but could still happen
#
bigbluehat
sandro: and pubsubhubbub?
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: yeah, I think there's still interest and activity
#
bigbluehat
tantek: it seems there's been some good github activity recently
#
bigbluehat
...the big question there is whether its ready for FPWD
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I'd like to review it, but I'd like to tackle WebMention and the other things I'm tackling
#
bigbluehat
tantek: right. this is sort of like Post Type Discovery. they're not as ready as the others
#
bigbluehat
...they'd be more "at risk" than the others
#
bigbluehat
...they feel pretty small
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: well. pubsubhubbub is pretty large
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: yeah. it's bigger than what it looks like from my guide
#
bigbluehat
sandro: signed deliver specifically sounds like an "at risk" feature
#
bigbluehat
tantek: or perfect for a later version
#
bigbluehat
...k. we have 10 more minutes left in this item
#
bigbluehat
...we'd talked about doing a November face-to-face
#
bigbluehat
...presumably by then all of our specs would be in CR
#
bigbluehat
...and we'd be evaluating reports and test suites
#
bigbluehat
...to be sure all that was covered
#
bigbluehat
...so the question is, is there value to doing some of this in person?
#
bigbluehat
...or is that something we want to do remotely/virtually over telecom
#
Zakim
sees no one on the speaker queue
#
bigbluehat
csarven: real quick about the dates
#
bigbluehat
...we said October 11th
#
bigbluehat
...is there then sufficient time before a proposed F2F?
#
bigbluehat
sandro: we'd be in CR, but we'd possibly be at the end of CR for some of these
#
bigbluehat
tantek: it would be sufficient to still have time left in CR
#
bigbluehat
...it'd then be up to myself and the chairs to cover
#
bigbluehat
...it'd be great to quickly turn around exit reports
#
bigbluehat
...it shouldn't block us on a F2F
#
bigbluehat
...so I'd like to get some input
#
Zakim
sees cwebber on the speaker queue
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: so. my other thought.
timbl joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
...our biggest difference between a F2F and the tel-cons is the length of consecutive time.
#
bigbluehat
sandro: right a virtual face to face
#
bigbluehat
bigbluehat: DPUB did this for their use case documents--and with enough coffee it's not too bad
#
bigbluehat
tantek: there was some talk that if we did a F2F we could use MIT
#
bigbluehat
...as the potentially preferred option
#
Zakim
sees no one on the speaker queue
#
Zakim
sees no one on the speaker queue
#
bigbluehat
...and still looking at November
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: I'd be AOK with doing another F2F
#
bigbluehat
...they've been super productive lately
#
bigbluehat
...but if that's to difficult for everyone, it might be good to do the remote f2f
#
bigbluehat
...maybe 2 weeks with 2 half day meetings
#
bigbluehat
sandro: M, T and then the next M, T
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: one advantage of the F2F is that folks get less distracted
#
bigbluehat
...I also don't know where I'll be in September
#
bigbluehat
tantek: Bali?
#
bigbluehat
sandro: we should probably do that in December
#
tantek
s/tantek/rhiaro
#
bigbluehat
tnx tantek
#
bigbluehat
tantek: so there does seem to be some consensus that a f2f would be ideal, and virtual as a workable fallback
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: maybe somewhere in europe?
#
bigbluehat
waves to wseltzer :)
#
bigbluehat
tantek: wseltzer just pointed to our charter
#
sandro
wseltzer, can you be a little more specific?
#
bigbluehat
...it says "F2F once a year at minimum, 3 times a year at maximum"
#
wseltzer
yes, tht's what I was pointing out
#
bigbluehat
tnx wseltzer
#
tantek
wseltzer: are you able to join us in 1.06?
#
wseltzer
since f2f's are expensive in time and travel costs, we want to keep an eye on them
#
bigbluehat
tantek: the facts are, we have met 3 times this year
#
wseltzer
eads up
#
aaronpk
tsyesika i just restarted the hangouts, we lost wifi for a sec here
#
bigbluehat
...we are interpreting that as we could do that, if enough of us agree
#
bigbluehat
...it would be odd to say, we can't do it if everyone in the group would like to
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I will say that I no longer have a huge budget for this
#
bigbluehat
...so personally closer to the West Coast would be helpful
#
bigbluehat
tantek: ok...
#
bigbluehat
...there's a since that F2F would still be useful
#
bigbluehat
...there's a since that the US would be preferred over international
#
bigbluehat
...there's another proposal for Sweden
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: yeah...but I can't really volunteer someone elses time and buliding
#
bigbluehat
sandro: personally, West Coast is nicer for me than a European trip that time of year
kjetil joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: my preference is Boston because i have lots of "crash spaces"
#
bigbluehat
csarven: I wouldn't be able to attend unless its in Bern
#
bigbluehat
tantek: oh. here's Wendy
#
bigbluehat
wseltzer: yeah. I saw you were chatting about the F2F
#
bigbluehat
...and just wanted to remind that you'd chartered it to 3, but you can certainly override it with approval from the membership
#
bigbluehat
s/approval/agreement
#
aaronpk
s/a huge budget/external funding/
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk right. that. ;)
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: I'm AOK with doing the remote thing
#
aaronpk
i may have misspoke :)
#
bigbluehat
tantek: if we do a F2F with remote participation
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: what if we do 2 F2F's one in the US and one in the EU with remote participation
#
bigbluehat
tantek: do we have that much activity in the EU?
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: not sure, I'm just continuing to volunteer people who aren't here
#
bigbluehat
sandro: I've been part of two-headed f2f's with 6 people in each room
#
rhiaro
smirks at two-headed
#
bigbluehat
tantek: paulj what are your thoughts on a F2F
#
bigbluehat
paulj: I am not sure we can attend a F2F
#
bigbluehat
tantek: would you be interested in attending virtually?
#
bigbluehat
paulj: yes.
#
sandro
wseltzer, my sense would be if the WG has unanimity to meet, it's okay to meet more often than the charter (foolishly IMHO) says
#
bigbluehat
...it is difficult because of timezones--telecom is at 2 am in Korea
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: we can schedule it for 24 hours and do it in shifts
#
bigbluehat
tantek: let's do a stray poll
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: do we not already have that
#
bigbluehat
tantek: true. anyone object to a F2F?
#
bigbluehat
sandro: the one thing maybe I have said, is that I'm likely not up for traveling, but I would be up for remote
#
bigbluehat
tantek: aaronpk, cwebber2?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I'm up for West Coast. Maybe East Coast, depending on the timeframe and cost
#
bigbluehat
tantek: if we're committed to the F2F, then perhaps we can pin down the dates for the people most interested
#
bigbluehat
sandro: maybe we should look at 14-15th (avoiding the week before because politics)
#
wseltzer
s/certainly//
#
bigbluehat
tantek: maybe 15 & 16, so we can do Monday for travel
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: that's actually the best week in November for travel
#
wseltzer
notes IETF meeting in Seoul then, if anyone overlaps
#
bigbluehat
tantek: can we discuss 15 & 16 for a F2F?
#
bigbluehat
...any other dates to propose?
#
bigbluehat
...open to counter proposals. this one just seems to be getting traction
#
csarven
+1 to Nov 15. -1 to Nov 16.
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: is this for boston?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: if your date and location are tied together, that would be good to note
#
bigbluehat
csarven: I'd be remote
#
bigbluehat
tantek: how about the 17-18th
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: I'll be traveling
#
bigbluehat
^^ that right rhiaro ?
paulcj joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: I'll be traveling sometime in that month. Those dates are OK
#
tantek
s/traveling/traveling earlier that month so that's slightly better
#
bigbluehat
tantek: slightly better at least
#
bigbluehat
tnx tantek
#
bigbluehat
s/tantek: slightly better at least//
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I'd have to stay over the weekend to make it work...
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: I smell an indie web camp
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: good point
#
bigbluehat
tantek: k. i think that's probably narrowed down enough that it's worth us bringing to the folks not in the room
#
bigbluehat
...to see if that works for them or have a preference
#
bigbluehat
...particularly Evan
#
bigbluehat
...certainly in the US is easier for him
#
bigbluehat
...Julian is another person that would be great to have at the F2F
#
bigbluehat
...so knowing location needs for them would be great
#
sandro
s/Julian/Julien/
#
bigbluehat
tnx sandro ...spell check liked the first on better :-P
#
bigbluehat
tantek: any objections?
#
bigbluehat
sandro: tantek do you want to send that out?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: I'll let you do that.
#
bigbluehat
...we're about 20 minutes behind
#
bigbluehat
...aaronpk are yo ready to talk about web mention next steps?
#
bigbluehat
...since this is that last session before the morning break...
#
bigbluehat
...csarven can you present the issues page for webmention?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: since we're chatting LDN later today, then there's only 1 issue
#
bigbluehat
tantek: actually let's be sure to do the I18N one also, so we're ready for that review
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: summary of issue #57
kaorumaeda joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
...the spec says that while there's no required body as a response it may contain content
#
bigbluehat
...there are responders that send cute messages in response
#
bigbluehat
...mostly they are ACKs--esentially
#
bigbluehat
...some of them do send JSON responses that point to where the notification is stored
#
bigbluehat
...if it's used for things like IndieNews, then they have useful information in the response
#
bigbluehat
...but if it's pure WebMention, the only thing you need in response is the 201 response code
#
bigbluehat
...the I18N concern that that the spec says "a human readable response" but doesn't address I18N concerns at all
#
bigbluehat
tantek: it's optional?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: right. it's a MAY
#
bigbluehat
...and likely no user will actually ever see this--just developers
#
bigbluehat
...the same is true with error responses
#
bigbluehat
...the spec says it MAY contain a description of the error
#
bigbluehat
...sometimes they are explicit about the error
#
bigbluehat
..."we were able to find the page, but unable to find your link"
#
bigbluehat
tantek: let me see if I can summarize
#
bigbluehat
...this is about informative developer messages
#
bigbluehat
...one way we can phrase a question to the I18N
#
bigbluehat
...what is your recommendation on optional informative developer messages?
#
bigbluehat
...possibly this is something they have a general recommendation for that kind of thing
#
bigbluehat
...that's one way could narrow that request of them
#
bigbluehat
csarven: so I can understand this better, is the assumption that an application is making the request?
#
bigbluehat
...is the developer unaware of the request going through?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: yeah. generally it's a sender server application
#
bigbluehat
...and it's rarely exposed to the recipient user
#
bigbluehat
tantek: what about webmentions from a form request?
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: you would dump it to the user
#
rhiaro
s/would/wouldn't
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: so. some of them respond with a formated HTML response that is seen by people
#
Zakim
sees bigbluehat on the speaker queue
#
rhiaro
scribenick: rhiaro
#
rhiaro
bigbluehat: the content type can be whatever in response?
#
rhiaro
... Can you just recommend that they use http headers for any language declarations?
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: probably
#
rhiaro
bigbluehat: and just say respond with http and reference 7240 or whichever one that says what the language is
#
rhiaro
... and you should do http good
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: that's probably fine
#
rhiaro
bigbluehat: just push it down the stack to http. otherwise you're going to run into defining other things
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: and there's reasons to return nothing
#
rhiaro
bigbluehat: it's a nice big known quantity youc ould use for that
#
rhiaro
... happy to help find those
#
rhiaro
tantek: if you're sending a humanr eadable response you should be sending the folloiwng http headers
#
rhiaro
... the other consideration which i18n is getting at is that there are accept headers, and accept language..
#
rhiaro
bigbluehat: there's accept language and content language
#
rhiaro
tantek: so you should be looking at accept headers sent by the senders
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: is it okay to just say do http?
#
rhiaro
bigbluehat: there are two people doing http. The sender and server. You'd have to state that you're going tp ass through anya ccept language stuff to the endpoint and then back trhough.. relyaing those headers?
#
rhiaro
tantek: I think all you have to say is the endpoint shoudl look at the accept header of the request and then should respond accordingly per http with the appropriate content and language header
#
rhiaro
bigbluehat: should maintain client preferences
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: content type applies as well
#
rhiaro
tantek: you can narrow the requirements. if the accept header is requesting html do this, otherwise do what you want
#
rhiaro
csarven: if it's html it's defintiely inteded to be viewed by a human
#
rhiaro
... plain could go either way, but less likely human in this case
#
rhiaro
tantek: so if there was an accept header of application/json then the endpoint could just blow it off
#
rhiaro
... the only accept content type header that's relevant to pay attention to is html
timbl joined the channel
#
rhiaro
bigbluehat: the ones that the spec should encourage for fallbacks to text/plain or */* so we don't get 415, especially since the body i soptional
#
rhiaro
... i18n might be okay with the body should be ignored but may be persisted
#
rhiaro
... options has this
#
rhiaro
... most people just ignore the body
#
rhiaro
... If you say the meaning of this response is restricted to the headers, you may reuse the contents however you see fit, and possibly take out the humanr eadable bit, and that would totally punt on the problem
#
rhiaro
... Then you can say for more advanced use cases lean on http's defined header patterns
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: I like that
#
rhiaro
tantek: that is an option to drop that may/recommend completely
#
rhiaro
... you can put a note saying implementations have done x
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: does that include removing that example?
#
rhiaro
csarven: is that example an error?
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: it may already have a status url, doesn't mean it's done
#
rhiaro
bigbluehat: the resource exists but not its representation
#
rhiaro
csarven: if I go and dereference that..
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: what you get will change... gives you a 200 and a json body
#
rhiaro
... This is also something I want to do as an extension
#
rhiaro
... here's how to do status reporting of processing, it's pretty useful
#
rhiaro
... But totally an extension
#
rhiaro
cwebber2: that's something we have in media goblin, with submitting a video, it has to transcode, yo udon't wait to give a response
#
rhiaro
aaronpk: yeah deservers proper research and spec
#
rhiaro
tantek: as an interim you may want to consider an informative note
#
rhiaro
bigbluehat: and be clear that th e normative response is 'it happened, here is location'
#
rhiaro
tantek: setting expecatiosn for consumers with that information
#
bigbluehat
scribenick: bigbluehat
#
bigbluehat
tantek: I did want to talk about bigbluehat's point about passing HTTP headers
#
bigbluehat
...is that something you want to state normatively?
#
bigbluehat
...specifically we should be sure that the Accept-* headers are handled
#
bigbluehat
...and perhaps recommend that */* is always included as a safety net
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: so this is solely about client to webmention endpoint. not endpoint to server.
#
bigbluehat
...we can add an informative note for how things happen in a browser context
#
bigbluehat
tantek: does that resolve that issue? and solve the I18N issue?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: right. I'm going to drop the human readable response recommendation from the normative text
#
bigbluehat
...there's still the error response issue
#
bigbluehat
...I will ask for recommendations that have no actual processing needs
#
bigbluehat
tantek: that all sounds good. plus bigbluehat's do HTTP properly recommendation
#
bigbluehat
...that should hopefully make the I18N folks happy about it
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I've added those to issue #57
#
bigbluehat
...the other one is issue #48
#
bigbluehat
...this came up during a face-to-face. it has my name on it but I opened it for someone else--probably Ryan of Bridgy
#
bigbluehat
tantek: there are situations where this has broken "in the wild"
#
bigbluehat
...so we should probably be ready for this same situation
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: the scenario is an blog post containing 8 links
#
bigbluehat
...and discovery having to be done on all 8 links
#
bigbluehat
...so there are interesting thoughts in the thread
#
bigbluehat
...bear for instance has some interesting thoughts
#
bigbluehat
csarven: so to fill in the blanks. is this the sending or the discovery?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: it's the discovery step
#
bigbluehat
...you may have added a web mention endpoint
#
bigbluehat
sandro: this is just about discovery and rediscovery
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: yeah. even re-sending.
#
bigbluehat
...because it's spec'd to recheck
#
bigbluehat
....I feel like it's pretty simple per URL. a simple backup strategy
#
bigbluehat
sandro: cache headers?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: per-url following cache headers is a pretty easy answers
#
bigbluehat
...you should start there.
#
bigbluehat
...I don't think we need to recommend a back-off strategy for per-url
#
bigbluehat
...and document that they should have some back-off strategy
#
bigbluehat
...the challenge is multiple URLs on the same host
#
bigbluehat
...a very common way this actually happens is when I link to your post and your home page
#
bigbluehat
...a lot of people have the mention endpoint on the post, but not on the home page
#
bigbluehat
...so the question is, how do you avoid these failure cases
paulj joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
breaking for serious coffee needs
jungbin joined the channel
#
tantek
resume at 11:05
KjetilK joined the channel
newton and KjetilK joined the channel
#
newton
present+ newton
Arnaud joined the channel
#
Arnaud
present+
#
tantek
present+ Ann Bassetti
paulcj and annbass joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: we looked at OPTIONs during the break
#
bigbluehat
tantek: but it's unclear who can control that
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: also robots.txt does have some extension/variation that can state rate limit style statements
#
bigbluehat
...however it's not documented in the standard
#
bigbluehat
...though it is implemented by yandex and bing
#
bigbluehat
...because we don't have any implementation experience around host-level rate limiting
#
bigbluehat
...another option we have is to move the scenario to a client concern
#
bigbluehat
...so they have a way to handle the problem or warn the server
#
bigbluehat
...so it's clear why there are so many GET requests
#
bigbluehat
...another option is making recommendations around multiple URLs
#
bigbluehat
...one is recommending respecting cache headers per URL
#
bigbluehat
tantek: sounds like there's enough information to iterate on
boris_anthony joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: the only thing I'm confident to recommend at this point is stating that the client would include something in the user-agent string
#
bigbluehat
...so that servers know why there's a high level of GET requests
#
bigbluehat
csarven: so we've actually only handled it in retry scenarios
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: ActivityPub recommended we handle that
#
bigbluehat
sandro: yeah. the webmention scenario is about discovery
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: LDN's discovery is basically the same
#
bigbluehat
csarven: the URL could be somewhere else on the web
#
bigbluehat
sandro: right it's the same for webmention
#
bigbluehat
tantek: right. the follow-your-noise kind of thing
#
bigbluehat
csarven: think we should just state "be nice"
jungbin joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
...it's going to be hard to recommend a clear hard limit for people to follow
#
bigbluehat
sandro: it's sort of like "how long can a URL be?"
annbass joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
tantek: aaronpk can you propose a solution
#
annbass
present+
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: yep. 1. add a cache header and not try more often than that suggests
#
bigbluehat
...also 2. including the text "webmention" in the User-Agent header so there's an indication of why the requests are coming
#
bigbluehat
tantek: anyone object to that?
#
tantek
RESOLVED: accept aaronpk's proposal to close issue 48
#
bigbluehat
tantek: next issue?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: who posted #63?
#
sandro
KjetilK,
#
KjetilK
<-
#
bigbluehat
KjetilK: it's just about the HEAD request and a status code
#
bigbluehat
tantek: the key is to be sure that the things you need in the later spec are still there
#
bigbluehat
...next issue?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: things seem done. waiting on a response for #55
#
bigbluehat
...otherwise, we'll see after the I18N review
#
bigbluehat
tantek: k. we're through the WebMention issues
#
bigbluehat
...so. now we talk test suite
#
bigbluehat
...does it cover the conformance requirements?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: great question. let me find that section
#
bigbluehat
...I believe it covers all the sender requirements
#
bigbluehat
...most of the test suite checks the discovery and receiving of them
#
bigbluehat
...there are tests for updates and deletes
#
bigbluehat
...for testing receivers, it basically sends you a mention and then you prove that you can receive it
#
bigbluehat
...I haven't gone through all the MUSTs and SHOULDs?
#
bigbluehat
bigbluehat: definitely the MUSTs
#
bigbluehat
tantek: but it's best to do the SHOULDs too
#
bigbluehat
...it's expected that implementations conform to both
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: there's actually not a lot of MUSTs in receiving at all
#
bigbluehat
tantek: should there be?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: no. lots of that is up to the receiver
#
bigbluehat
...things like what sort of source content it receives
#
bigbluehat
...also the number of redirects to follow...there's no tests for that
#
bigbluehat
sandro: you could have it test against infinite redirects
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I could bump what ever number they say they support by 1 and then do that many redirects and see if it succeeds or fails
#
bigbluehat
tantek: another way to look at it is interoperability.
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: possibly testing for 1 redirect would be useful for interop
#
bigbluehat
tantek: that does sound useful. for receivers right?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: yes
#
bigbluehat
tantek: we're looking at feature coverage and interop
#
bigbluehat
sandro: could you testing the infinite redirect case for the error scenario?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: it's possible. that's not a conformance thing though
#
bigbluehat
sandro: but it's a nice thing to have for killing broken code
#
bigbluehat
tantek: is that something you cover in security concerns?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: yes. I believe so
#
bigbluehat
...yes. it's in security considerations
#
bigbluehat
tantek: perhaps make sure the redirects bit are there
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: it's there.
#
bigbluehat
tantek: don't bother with the infinite case--as it's not needed for the spec validation
#
bigbluehat
Arnaud: yeah. if it's not a spec requirement it's not something we have to test
#
bigbluehat
tantek: yeah. there are also better things to work on given the amount of time we have in our charter
#
bigbluehat
...you might consider raising the redirect issue with the TAG
#
bigbluehat
Arnaud: no. don't do that...
#
bigbluehat
bigbluehat: you could do it post CR/TR for a way to test non-spec requirement things that people really should still do for a way to help implementers
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I'm going to make a milestone for it
#
bigbluehat
tantek: perhaps "feature complete" testing
#
bigbluehat
...things that help implementors do a better job with their implementations
#
bigbluehat
...we need to know from you, aaronpk (and the other editors), that you feel the tests are ready to cover the spec requirements
#
bigbluehat
...and generate reports
#
bigbluehat
...how are the implementation reports coming?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: missing a few of them
#
bigbluehat
...some of these are self-reported
tkim joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
...some of them are check marks generated by the test suite?
#
bigbluehat
sandro: is there an easy view of this?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: do you have a tabular format?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I have not done that yet
#
bigbluehat
tantek: how much more time do you want for that?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I can probably aggregate that today
#
bigbluehat
tantek: and give a review tomorrow?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: yeah. that should work
#
bigbluehat
sandro: are you all doing the same sort of reporting?
#
bigbluehat
rhiaro: we're copying webmention
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: my plan has been to copy the other two
#
bigbluehat
tantek: what about AS2?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: this is a bit of an aside...we'll get to these discussions later in the AS2 section
#
bigbluehat
...aaronpk you'll get use those reports tomorrow.
#
bigbluehat
...we know there are more tests
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: and there are things in the reports that don't necessarily have code tests
#
bigbluehat
tantek: than that's a good hint that there's more to add to the test suite
#
sandro
( looking back dreamily on https://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out -- which took live feeds of test results )
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: do you need to ask people to re-run tests if you change the tests?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: yes.
#
bigbluehat
bigbluehat: if they're conformance requirements
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: the implementation report template is complete
#
bigbluehat
...that does reflect the spec
#
bigbluehat
...so I'm not going to be changing the template
#
bigbluehat
tantek: right now that's self reporting
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: my understanding is that manual testing is an option
#
bigbluehat
sandro: right. that's fine.
#
bigbluehat
tantek: code would be nicer
#
bigbluehat
sandro: some scenarios can't be tested with code
#
bigbluehat
tantek: sure.
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: and some of these webmention tests can't be either and have to be validated by humans
#
bigbluehat
tantek: my preference would be that if you can write a code test, then you should and we should make that the conformatant requirement
#
bigbluehat
...I know in CSS there's a pretty high bar for claims of passing
#
bigbluehat
...now. css specs often take a very long time to excite CR
#
bigbluehat
...but my preference is that we do have code tests for implementations as much as possible
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I agree that makes since.
#
bigbluehat
...however, I will say it's possible to write some of these but also impractical
#
bigbluehat
...for instances the asynchronous cases
#
bigbluehat
...because there's no defined way to say that it's "complete"
#
bigbluehat
...we haven't specified a way to know when it's done
#
bigbluehat
...so it'd be a lot of work and not even a guarantee that it's confromant
#
bigbluehat
sandro: it's more like writing code to help a human do the testing
#
bigbluehat
tantek: so. it's probably best that we spot check implementations that they actually work if mashed together
#
bigbluehat
...as far as us taking this to a CR transition call
#
bigbluehat
...so we can say that we've done manual testing and put implementations against each other
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: yeah. this is even a challenge in practice
#
bigbluehat
...sometimes you don't know if it worked because the mentions are moderated
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2: could you have a manual mode for you suite?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: I could, but it's a lot of work and only marginally valuable
#
bigbluehat
sandro: because webmention doesn't keep things around it's tricker to know if it worked
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: and the spam avoidance features make it particularly tricky to test
#
bigbluehat
sandro: if we could go backwards we cold spec features specifically for testing/validation, but it's too late for that
#
bigbluehat
tantek: whatever method we employ, we need to talk the director through the interop situation.
#
bigbluehat
...ideally, anyone could come to our test reporting and find conformant implementations
#
bigbluehat
...it would certainly be nice. we don't have to. but it would make things smoother and more impressive
#
bigbluehat
Arnaud: well. let's be real. I don't think anyone's ever lied about pasting these sorts of tests
#
bigbluehat
tantek: yeah. I'm not implying that, just that there may be bugs that the test suite doesn't cover or find
#
bigbluehat
sandro: there are scenarios where spot checks are done across multiple implementations
#
bigbluehat
...this is especially true with vocabularies
#
bigbluehat
...you can test that the terms are there, but an human usually validates that they're in the right place and used the right way
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: k. just to summarize, the requirements for PR is
#
bigbluehat
...implementation reports validate 2 or more implementations of every feature
#
bigbluehat
...ideally done via automated tested
#
bigbluehat
tantek: it's a huge plus
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: and what was the other requirement?
#
bigbluehat
sandro: all issues address. and wide review
#
bigbluehat
...did we miss security review?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: yes. it's in the spec
#
Loqi
[Mike West] Self-Review Questionnaire: Security and Privacy
#
bigbluehat
...wait. is it filled out?
#
Loqi
[Mike West] Self-Review Questionnaire: Security and Privacy
#
bigbluehat
tantek: it's not currently required
#
bigbluehat
...but it's very helpful
#
bigbluehat
sandro: specifically the privacy bits
#
bigbluehat
...given that this is a social protocol
#
bigbluehat
tantek: how do folks feel about this?
#
bigbluehat
...I filled this out for CSS UI
#
bigbluehat
...I went through it. I didn't find any real surprises, but it was helpful to think about these issues.
#
bigbluehat
...after having done the self-review I found it helpful
#
bigbluehat
...I'd like us to consider adding this as a requirement for our specs
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: where would I put this?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: in security considerations
#
Loqi
[Tantek Çelik] CSS Basic User Interface Module Level 3 (CSS3 UI)
#
bigbluehat
...or an appendix would work
#
bigbluehat
...which is what I did for CSS3 UI
#
bigbluehat
...I think it would be pretty short
#
bigbluehat
...I think it's useful for the privacy interest group specifically
#
bigbluehat
csarven: should I just pick applicable ones?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: no. you answer them all
#
bigbluehat
csarven: that seems possible
#
bigbluehat
...that's only for convenience right?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: it's for anyone
#
bigbluehat
csarven: I definitely see the value of it
#
bigbluehat
...what about the others?
#
bigbluehat
...should the I18N self review go in there too?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: let me split your question
#
Loqi
[Richard Ishida] Internationalization Best Practices for Spec Developers
#
bigbluehat
...should we be doing self reviews? that's the first question
#
bigbluehat
...and that's a yes
#
bigbluehat
...on the should we put them in the spec question, it depends on the spec
#
csarven
i18n as well as a13y
#
bigbluehat
...if it's heavily about privacy and security, then that should be there
#
rhiaro
I thought it was a11y but I don't have brainpower to count right now
#
bigbluehat
s/a13y/a11y
#
bigbluehat
accessibillitty?
#
bigbluehat
sandro: another approach to doing this is the issue tracker
#
cwebber2
access.bit.ly
#
csarven
:) I meant a11y
#
csarven
can't count
#
KjetilK
has to leave for the airport before 13:00, so I'll sneak out to lunch now
#
rhiaro
ability to count not prerequisite for WG participation
#
annbass
smiles
#
bigbluehat
bigbluehat: that sounds great
#
bigbluehat
...and then go to horizontal with those filled out
#
sandro
bye KjetilK !!
#
bigbluehat
tantek: that does sound like a reasonable approach
#
bigbluehat
Arnaud: yes. the sooner we make these horizontal request the better
#
bigbluehat
sandro: yeah. we said we'd definitely do it this week
#
bigbluehat
Arnaud: yeah. sadly it's tricky because if you ask too soon, then they just tell you to come back later
#
bigbluehat
sandro: reviewers want the specs to be simpler and easier to review
#
bigbluehat
...because they also have time pressures
#
Zakim
sees bigbluehat on the speaker queue
#
bigbluehat
heh...I've been there since before the break
#
Zakim
sees no one on the speaker queue
#
bigbluehat
tantek: I want to minimize the unexpected requirements for editors
#
bigbluehat
...and narrow in on things that all the editors agree too
#
bigbluehat
...so I've put MicroPub after lunch and AS2 after that
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: we'll have just 40 minutes for lunch
#
bigbluehat
...and I think MicroPub will take as long or longer than WebMention
#
bigbluehat
tantek: perhaps there's enough overlap that it'll be faster
#
bigbluehat
...and to rhiaro's point it should help the other editors
#
bigbluehat
AnnBass: are you going to the AC meeting?
#
bigbluehat
tantek: yes.
#
bigbluehat
...and the other groups will chair the combined meetings
#
bigbluehat
adjourned for lunch
#
annbass
(for the record, I am also going to AC meeting)
#
bigbluehat
tnx AnnBass
paulj joined the channel
#
ben_thatmustbeme
is guessing you will be back from break soon
jungbin, harry and tantek joined the channel
#
cwebber2
scribenick: cwebber2
tkim8 joined the channel
#
cwebber2
tantek: let's look through open micropub issues, how about starting with #7
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: the bottom 4 we can ignore, we're waiting on response, the main one I wanted to talk about was #55
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: I think cwebber2 may have experience with this
#
Zakim
sees bigbluehat on the speaker queue
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: for right now it's mentioned that when the application should return json, it returns the application/json content type
#
Zakim
sees bigbluehat on the speaker queue
#
tantek
ack bigbluehat
#
Zakim
sees no one on the speaker queue
#
cwebber2
cwebber2: not sure why it would need a different media type
kaorumaeda joined the channel
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: there's no need to switch media types as long as processing is the same
#
cwebber2
... using the profile= thing may be okay but also may be unnecessary
#
cwebber2
tantek: is there any specific requirements
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: no it's just some specific terms
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: so, we use the json-ld context, but you could reference a schema that says here are the keys we have to have, but you could just ship it as application/json and that's fine
#
cwebber2
... if your processing model hasn't changed from json that might be fine
#
cwebber2
... what json-ld says "this term has this meaning throughout the tree"
annbass joined the channel
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: right and with json-ld it says certain kinds of structure are not allowed
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: yes like lists of lists
#
cwebber2
tantek: what do json based snowflake apis do
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: github uses its own vendored media type, but a profile object is a better type
#
cwebber2
... usually it points to an html spec, it uses an @context
#
cwebber2
sandro: is github's model common
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: sometimes, but profile is starting to be pushed because it's dereferenceable
#
cwebber2
tantek: you need to register them potentially, etc?
#
cwebber2
sandro: I am on the ietf types mailing list, but they aren't that common
#
tantek
issue URL?
#
trackbot
doesn't understand that ISSUE command.
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: with hal-json and etc, they have _links and etc
#
tantek
GH issue URL
#
cwebber2
... that one did change the processing model, it's now hypermedia, etc
#
cwebber2
... so if you're just saying I have expected keys or I have a value, etc
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: there's a place where the actual json struture is expected, which is where microformats2-json (?), which is restricted in its structure in that it has only arrays somewhere
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: this is a subset of json, so it may return a microformats 2 json, so
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: I'll show you the web annotations spe
#
Loqi
[Robert Sanderson] Web Annotation Data Model
#
Loqi
[Robert Sanderson] Web Annotation Protocol
#
bigbluehat
application/ld+json;profile="http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld"
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: it looks like that ^
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: the other issue is like with hal you want application/json etc, or you say no I'm a hal client, give me the links
#
cwebber2
... profile situation you're still operating as json so you can say this is what it means / conforms to
#
cwebber2
... but if user didn't bother to look this up it can still be treated as json successfully
#
cwebber2
tantek: do we have any implementations that want to be content negotiating?
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: there's nothing in micropub that can/does do content negotiation?
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: so minting another media type is hard
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: and this proposal is to do another new media type, but that's not the main issue, so if there's another way to do it, that would be good
jungbin joined the channel
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: if he can use application/json + profile...
#
cwebber2
tantek: is there anything else in they can look at; his use case is I want to quickly determine if I made an error
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: it's also the right way to do versioning
#
cwebber2
... you have the option of issueing a new profile when you send a url
#
cwebber2
tantek: is this worth a normative change that breaks open the CR?
#
cwebber2
tantek: if it's a SHOULD it's a normative change... maybe make it a note
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: I've had experience that it's a MUST that will break open CR
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: we define in our most recent work that our application/ld+json(?) + profile....
#
cwebber2
tantek: that's the thing is, he wants to use it for quick error verification, so he can't rely on it for his use case, I'm not sure what the value is
paulcj joined the channel
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: beyond the first post he goes deeper into error reporting
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: there's an error responses section
#
cwebber2
tantek: if that point if a client is making this request they've already read the spec
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: he may be referring to it, but there's a registered media type for a json shape that looks like that or really close
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: this feels like overkill to me, because at the point that you're talking to a MP server you know you're working with a MP server
#
cwebber2
tantek: I'm going to call out the versioning point, I'm getting a consensus that we don't need to make any changes for this version of micropub, so part 1 let's resolve on that if there's no objections to close this issues with no changes for this version of micropub
#
cwebber2
csarven: the successful one doesn't do it, so why should it do anything different
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: I think he was pointing out that the successful ones do do it, so
#
cwebber2
tantek: maybe leave this issue open for a future version?
#
cwebber2
tantek: and maybe have a way to have a micropub 1.1 server to distinguish its responses
#
Zakim
sees cwebber on the speaker queue
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: right because at that point you know what version of a micropub server you're talking to
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: if you don't start now, it's a gues
#
cwebber2
tantek: if it's new verisons you can make it a MUST that says it's a new version
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: right with the caveat that json clients will fall down to application/json, so if they don't get the profile they'll fall down to version 1 (?)
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: that's worth calling out in a new version, if there is one
#
cwebber2
tantek: that also has the nice side effect of buying us time for finding out what that would mean
#
cwebber2
... it sounds like json-ld contexts for that?>
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: yes that seems to be what's happening
#
cwebber2
tantek: so in the future, if that catches on, we might have better guidance
#
bigbluehat
as an aside, here's the application/vnd.error+json specification https://github.com/blongden/vnd.error
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: I want to add for the notes for this of doing the json type is that this is what oauth does
#
Zakim
sees cwebber on the speaker queue
#
tantek
ack cwebber
#
Zakim
sees no one on the speaker queue
#
rhiaro
scribenick: rhiaro
#
rhiaro
cwebber2: The versioning thing might be something relevent to all specs if we end up taking this path
#
rhiaro
... Talking to the pumpio people, how they are going to migrate, say maybe we should have AP things put a header or something that indicates
#
rhiaro
tantek: I thought discovery was different
#
rhiaro
cwebber2: yeah discovery uses a different media type, that might be sufficient, just thinking briefly
#
rhiaro
... maybe later on, and we can discuss when we get to AP, have a general discussion about what to do in the group
#
rhiaro
... Or decide that if in the future we have new versions putting a must for a version number solves it
#
rhiaro
... That was just the first point I wanted to make
#
rhiaro
... But the second thing I wanted to say is we started to say a resolution but we didn't capture it
#
rhiaro
scribenick: cwebber2
#
cwebber2
RESOLVED: We're not going to make any changes, stick with application/json, but add a note about consideration for future versions, esp if there are incompatible other changes that a mimetype would help with. If there are conventions in the future more specific we could follow that.
#
cwebber2
RESOLVED: We're not going to make any changes, stick with application/json, but add a note about consideration for future versions, esp if there are incompatible other changes that a mimetype would help with. If there are conventions in the future more specific we could follow that. (Regarding issue #55.)
#
cwebber2
tantek: if we have a general approach to versioning for our specs that would be good to discuss... we can see if there are changes to pull into micropub we can cross that bridge when we get there
#
cwebber2
tantek: ok to move forward?
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: yes, can I close issue even though commenter has not replied?
#
cwebber2
tantek: I think you should provide commentary from the group with that explaination and say
#
cwebber2
sandro: ... "if that's good enough can we close this issue"?
#
cwebber2
tantek: yes
#
cwebber2
... if there's still an issue then, we can bring up at next telecon
#
bigbluehat
here's RFC6902 which defines the "profile" Link relationship and the profile="" media type parameter discussed just now: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906#section-3.1
#
tantek
I'd like to give ActivityPub the ability to the right thing for ActivityPub since it is still a WD, and then if there's anything from that that we need to pull back into Micropub we can cross that bridge when we get to it.
#
bigbluehat
In sum: "The objective of profiles is that they allow instances to clearly identify what kind of mechanism they are using for expressing additional semantics, should they follow a well-defined framework for doing so"
#
cwebber2
tantek: I think that makes all your issues awaiting commenter?
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: #54 commented this morning... great
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: this issue was about when querying the micropub endpoint for ? properties of the post, if it doesn't exist it currently errors, this says we should use 404, but I'm arguing against that
jungbin joined the channel
#
cwebber2
... if it replies with http 404 it says not found
#
cwebber2
... so 400 bad request I think catches that case
#
cwebber2
... and the actual text in rfc2068 about http response codes would actually forbid using 404
#
cwebber2
sandro: can you back up and say how we got to this point?
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: yes, part of micropub involves doing a GET request, which gives you a microformats 2 json response
timbl joined the channel
#
cwebber2
... if it doesn't exist, it will be 400, and say "not found"
#
cwebber2
sandro: it should probably give the thing...
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: it probably didn't
#
cwebber2
sandro: if you got a 400 vs 404 you might want to convey that....
#
cwebber2
sandro: conceptually I think you should make it clear you're acting as a proxy
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: 400 is the better one to use because it does malformed request syntax, etc...
#
cwebber2
sandro: I completely agree that 400 is the right thing, 404 is wrong, I was digging a side issue to explain it
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: 404 is cacheable by default, so you could cache that your endpoint is gone, even though it's actually something farther out
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: http 404 would be terrible because it would be handwavey and actually cause failures
#
cwebber2
sandro: it's about query parameters...
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: what if the resource is one hop away...
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: I will note that he added a comment this morning
#
cwebber2
... a lot of other tech doesn't use http error codes at all
#
cwebber2
tantek: any objection to closing this issue without change?
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: the one problem was that you said "not found" despite using a different request, so I think that's what tripped him up
#
cwebber2
sandro: "indirect resource not found" or something
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: I like "the guy behind me not found"
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: there are two parameters using this request, one is q=source, the other is url=blah
#
cwebber2
... so source not found, that seems to make it explicit and not be likely to be confused
#
cwebber2
... so suggestion to close this issue is to change error code to "source not found"
#
cwebber2
... is that an ok change to make?
#
cwebber2
sandro: that's a magic string in the code?
#
cwebber2
tantek: so this is a breaking change?
#
cwebber2
sandro: I'd say put this on a list for "if we go to CR do this, otherwise..."
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: I think that making this change is nice, but it's maybe not worth it
#
cwebber2
tantek: but it would also require updating implementations
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: so there are no test results in my repo of test results, but there cweiske has started to collect some on the indieweb wiki
#
cwebber2
... interestingly, none of the implementations appeared to support q=source at all
#
cwebber2
... mine implements it, but mine isn't open source, so
#
cwebber2
tantek: does another one implement it?
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: I think so, but think it wasn't open source
#
cwebber2
tantek: another way to look at it would be, if we got horizontal review from an http working group would we get feedback like "fix this, you must fix it to continue"
#
cwebber2
... if that's the case this is the chance you get to fix it
#
rhiaro
scribenick: rhiaro
#
cwebber2
scribenick: cwebber2
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: right now the spec does not require the client do anything with these errors, so...
#
Zakim
sees no one on the speaker queue
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: they currently have the same value as their description more or less
#
cwebber2
... there's no processing expected beyond that right
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: right most of the actions the client would take are based on the http code, like forbidden vs post is not found
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: one thing is that 400 has two potential values
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: so the this is the only http response defined that has 2 potential string values, the case of the source not found is descriptively covered by the first one "invalid request", which technically covers "this doesn't exist
#
cwebber2
... since we weren't telling clients to do anything different anyway
#
cwebber2
tantek: and dropping the string wouldn't change implementaitons right
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: I would make an editorial note to say strings using status codes from rfc, 400 Bad Request, and then say "this is the magic string"
#
cwebber2
sandro: you don't say what to do if you don't get those strings, probably say MUST ignore, but...
#
cwebber2
sandro: why would a machine even care
#
cwebber2
sandro: what would happen if an existing implementation already has one of these, and sends it to someone else
#
cwebber2
... so I suggest you add an editorial comment explaining what we always intended, which is fall back to invalid request
#
cwebber2
... so fall back to using numeric code
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: from a testing perspective this whole section is a MAY
#
cwebber2
sandro: if an error code is returned, it MUST....
#
ben_thatmustbeme
checks. I thought I supported q=source but i think I had it slightly different
#
cwebber2
sandro: if someone sends you an error code that isn't that string, it's a MUST
#
cwebber2
sandro: they're okay by leaving it out, or by using one of these 4 strings
annbass joined the channel
#
ben_thatmustbeme
Now I remember. I had started with something like q=source but had switched over to just fetching the object from html since no one had q=source support at the time
harry joined the channel
#
cwebber2
tantek: you're making a conformance change but it doesn't break any existing implementaitons, which we can explain to the director
#
cwebber2
bigbluehat: the question is, now that we've hit it, is how extensible is this space
#
cwebber2
tantek: if it's open ended, you don't need to deal with it
#
aaronpk
PROPOSED: Close #54 by dropping "not_found" from the list of error codes because that case was already covered by "invalid_request", and add a sentence saying how to handle unexpected error codes, and add a header to the bullet list of error codes to indicate this is the list of error strings defined by the spec
#
cwebber2
csarven: would this change make it through the changelog?
#
cwebber2
tantek: I've made that request yes
#
sandro
sandro: and we're explicitly not saying how other error string values get their meaning, or establish shared meaning. We're not going to do a registry of these things.
#
sandro
(agreement)
#
sandro
(I'm not thrilled, but this doesn't seem worth the effort)
timbl joined the channel
#
annbass
applauds my colleagues for really productive, collaborative discussions
#
annbass
3 cheers for such great progress!
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: state of the test suite is I've listed the tests I have to write out
#
cwebber2
... here's the list of tests to write
#
cwebber2
... what I have so far is I have the framework for someone interacting with these tests
#
cwebber2
... that's all ready to start actually writing the functionality of each test
#
cwebber2
tantek: so you have a plan but have to write the tests
#
cwebber2
... do you have a rough idea when?
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: when do you think you'll do it?
#
cwebber2
er s/aaronpk/tantek/
#
cwebber2
tantek: how about by the 4th
#
hadleybeeman
rrsagent, pointer?
paulcj_ joined the channel
#
bigbluehat
From the earlier topic, here's how OAuth2 defines it's error "magic string" space (and extensibility) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-8.5
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: let's log that as our status on that...
#
cwebber2
tantek: do you have imlementation reports?
#
cwebber2
... when do you think you can have the implementation report ready?
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: what's more important
#
cwebber2
tantek: accurate tests are important
#
bigbluehat
cwebber2 it looks like you need to do: s/thing/newthing/ (so in the earlier case the "er" prevented it from working...apparently)
#
cwebber2
tantek: do you also want to try to get that template by the 4th?
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: no
#
cwebber2
tantek: week after?
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: yes
#
ben_thatmustbeme
aaronpk, I can probably help with the template too
newton joined the channel
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: cyc has been doing implementation reports for clients and servers
#
cwebber2
... these are the open source implementations he's been looking at, he's been testing out some features
#
cwebber2
tantek: also a good example of a summary, which we don't have for our projects
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: he's also checking of specific properties of h-entry or other properties
#
cwebber2
... so he's being more thorough in some ways, and not as much in others, but he's also only checking open source implementations
jasnell joined the channel
#
ben_thatmustbeme
s/cyc has been/cweiske has been/
#
cwebber2
(discussion about, what do the links mean?)
#
cwebber2
thanks ben_thatmustbeme
#
cwebber2
tantek: I'm mentioning that since there aren't implementation reports, this helps us go to CR
#
cwebber2
... theoretically at that telecon ask the group to go to PR
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: it's definitely how I'm going to be influenced to create the test suite too, it's nice to be able to share the tests stuff
#
cwebber2
sandro: so I showed earliest working group stuff, and I was joining at CR, and I did test results and went more than needed, I felt like there was a nice feedback loop of people seeing their results as their feed, which they liked *anecdote*
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: he does have media endpoint on the list, there's less implementation now, my clients and servers support it, but that's one more thing where we need to get implementation on the server
#
cwebber2
tantek: this is good, we don't have anything like this for webmention do we?
paulj_ joined the channel
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: no
#
cwebber2
tantek: for as2, I think we don't either?
#
cwebber2
aaronpk: I don't think so...
#
cwebber2
tantek: okay, well it sounds good and you gave us dates and etc
#
cwebber2
... having a test suite with list of features, we can re-evaluate on oct 11th telecon on where we are
#
cwebber2
sandro: we might consider expecting that to be an extra long telecon?
#
cwebber2
... 90 minutes at least?
#
cwebber2
tantek: good idea to look into
#
cwebber2
... does anyone object to extending talk on 11th to 90 or 120 minutes?
#
cwebber2
tantek: we have about 25 minutes before break / AC meeting
#
cwebber2
sandro: I'm skipping the AC meeting, will go to i18n
#
cwebber2
tantek: is there anything left for schedule, such as activitypub next steps, that we could start looking at
#
cwebber2
cwebber2: we could start looking at activitypub early?
#
sandro
scribe: sandro
#
sandro
topic: ActivityPub
#
sandro
only one substantial, I think
#
sandro
cwebber2: I don't think that's normative, is it?
#
sandro
tantek: Were you thinking of adding the security question answers?
#
sandro
cwebber2: This doesn;t affect interop
#
sandro
aaronpk: Plenty of documentation about this
#
sandro
tantek: security considerations aren't normative
#
sandro
sandro: yeah, this isn't 2119 "should", it's a more general thing
#
aaronpk
RRSAgent, pointer
#
sandro
cwebber2: we do have security considerations, but I'm not sure if I got "non-normative" labels right.
#
aaronpk
RRSAgent, generate minutes
#
RRSAgent
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-social-minutes.html aaronpk
#
aaronpk
RRSAgent, make minutes public
#
RRSAgent
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', aaronpk. Try /msg RRSAgent help
KevinMarks joined the channel
#
sandro
tantek: now is the time to be making all your last-minute normative changes before you go to CR
#
annbass
me has to leave for AC meeting; am facilitating the first discussion
#
sandro
tantek: and you should label every section non-normative that doesn't have normative content
#
sandro
"source" field #107
#
sandro
cwebber2: This is a problem when the HTML is produced by something.... I'd like to add that?
#
Zakim
sees no one on the speaker queue
#
sandro
cwebber2: the source will not be rendered by the client, but it'll be carried
#
sandro
aaronpk: clients that support editing MUST work on source?
#
sandro
cwebber2: optional, it's a MAY
#
sandro
rhiaro: source might get out of sync
kaorumaeda joined the channel
#
sandro
cwebber2: I don't really care. people are probably using the same client to edit.
#
sandro
cwebber2: the CLIENT converts, the server never has to understand the source
#
sandro
cwebber2: this is what happens in clients currently -- they do markdown -to- html then lose the markdown
#
sandro
rhiaro: I'd have client go to & from html
#
sandro
cwebber2: But I want emacs orgmode, where the client can't convert from HTML
#
sandro
aaronpk: So what happens if someone edits the HTML, using another client?
#
sandro
cwebber2: then you delete the source
#
sandro
aaronpk: I'd like to see all the cases considered.
#
sandro
aaronpk: in Micropub, the server is the final authority on the content, and clients are expected to deal with HTML, or not understand the syntax and present to user as text/plain.
#
sandro
aaronpk: It might be orgmode or markdown or something.
#
sandro
tantek: show us in spec?
#
sandro
aaronpk: it's not written down in a lot of detail
jasnell joined the channel
#
sandro
aaronpk: the motivation /expectation is the person with the mp server knows what the original content should be, and they'll be using multiple clients that don't know what the user wants.
#
sandro
.. rather than having the clients know lots of formats
#
sandro
cwebber2: this is useful when editing your own posts
#
sandro
cwebber2: maybe if you like seeing the original markup / sourcecode in some way
#
Zakim
sees sandro on the speaker queue
paulj joined the channel
#
sandro
cwebber2: not everyone's going be writing in plain text
#
sandro
aaronpk: If the client doesn't understand format, then treat as plain text
#
sandro
aaronpk: I avoid markdown because it's not standard
#
ben_thatmustbeme
aaronpk audio on google hangouts is muted
#
bigbluehat
in other news text/markdown is now a Thing: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763
#
sandro
sandro: I think you can make this work, by protmpting the user, and maybe refusing, in some cases
#
aaronpk
oh boy, which markdown is this?
#
bigbluehat
aaronpk: see the `variant` parameter
#
sandro
cwebber2: html to other formats is hard and error prone
#
sandro
.. that's not good enough for me
#
sandro
cwebber2: or we could let the server handle it, but then I can't do org-mode !
#
sandro
sandro: if you can't understand the source, you must prompt the user and maybe delete the source
#
sandro
aaron: if the server gets content without source, it must delete the source
#
bigbluehat
oh. and here's another bit of RFC goodness that defines what to do with what might be inside a text/markdown response body: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7764
#
sandro
sandro: but client must prompt user before losing source
#
sandro
aaron: yes
boris_anthony joined the channel
#
sandro
rhiaro: I'm going to hate this. The client I make wont want to deal with source.
#
sandro
tantek: (somethjing about medium)
#
tantek
s/(somethjing about medium)/Medium provides a nice editor that seems to edit HTML and sends it back to the server
#
bigbluehat
Kubrick on Markdown (sort of) "Sometimes the truth of a thing is not so much in the think of it, but in the feel of it." -- Stanley Kubrick
#
sandro
rhiaro: But every client has to add a whole user interaction around this
#
tantek
PROPOSED: Add "source" field feature to ActivityPub per issue 107
#
sandro
+1 with the caveats above about clients never losing or corrupting data or getting out of sync without human approval
#
sandro
aaronpk: I'm not thrilled with this architecture. I want the server to be authoritative.
#
sandro
cwebber2: this is more like the state of the world in AP
Arnaud joined the channel
#
rhiaro
+1 at risk though I'm a bit spooked about having to build user interaction if a source is found because I always only want to handle html content
#
@bigbluehat
"caffeinated" is a personal "At Risk" feature right now at #TPAC2016 ...time for a break @SocialWebWG #amiright?!
(twitter.com/_/status/778958859679531013)
#
sandro
cwebber2: pumpa and dianara, the clients do the conversion, not the server.
#
cwebber2
+1 at risk
#
sandro
(my +1 is at risk)
#
csarven
+0 add it and see what breaks/works ;)
#
aaronpk
+0 with the addition of servers being required to drop source if an update was made with HTML, and recommending that this destructive edit be prompted to the user
#
bigbluehat
+0 on the feature; +1 on the "at risk"-ness of it
#
bigbluehat
and everyone go research MIME and Email :)
#
sandro
tantek: I'm not sure we have consensus around any one design here
#
csarven
MIME? Is that still around
#
sandro
tantek: so please take this to the issue discussion
#
tantek
ben_thatmustbeme: could you present+ yourself?
shepazu and newton joined the channel
#
ben_thatmustbeme
sorry i forgot that tantek
newton, paulj and Arnaud1 joined the channel
#
KevinMarks
Medium wrote about content editable and their editor
timbl, fsasaki and addison joined the channel
#
rhiaro
scribenick: sandro
#
sandro
topic: i18n
#
sandro
(introductions)
#
sandro
Addison
#
sandro
Amy Guy
#
sandro
Aaron
#
sandro
Sarven
#
sandro
Sandro
#
sandro
Felix
#
sandro
(missed two people whose names I couldn't spell)
newton, r12a and dae_ joined the channel
#
sandro
addison: that looks okay
#
rhiaro
good summary, sandro. Very efficient scribing.
#
sandro
resolved: close https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/39 with everyone happy
#
sandro
aaronpk: that was my only still-open micropub one
atai2 joined the channel
#
sandro
on webmention:
#
sandro
aaronpk: "no language support"
#
sandro
.. wm is a server-to-server protocol. In normal operation the response body is never seen.
#
sandro
.. it only comes up when people are developing / debugging
#
sandro
.. some developers never realized there was a response body
#
sandro
.. talking about it today, we're curious about for error responses, is there any typical guidance?
#
sandro
addison: Several classes of things have occured
#
sandro
.. in past standard
#
sandro
.. ietf has idefault
#
sandro
.. not a very global-friendly thing
#
sandro
.. we generally look at, if you're going to exchange natural lang text, you should including an indication of the language
#
sandro
.. so it's a good idea to provide language information if it's available
#
sandro
.. for APIs that interact with users, language negotiation is good
#
sandro
.. so the server can respond with the language the user wants
#
sandro
.. we not ulta-concerned
#
sandro
sandro: can we just use http header?
#
sandro
addison: that's what I recommended
newton joined the channel
#
sandro
aaronpk: we're planning to change the example to not include a body, because there's no functionality in having a body
#
sandro
aaronpk: since we're not recommending that
#
sandro
.. and adding a note explaining what implementations have done.
#
sandro
.. and saying some endpoints, when the request comes from the browser, give a full HTML response with all the negotiation
#
sandro
.. so include something about using HTTP best practices around Accept-Language
#
sandro
addison: example would just be HTTP 201 Created
#
sandro
aaronpk: do we want to remove specific recommendation of returning human-readable text
#
bigbluehat
Content-Language: computer ;)
#
sandro
addison: if you take out human readable, we wouldn't care very much
#
sandro
r12a: Content-Language can have multiple languages, though, so maybe it's not ideal
#
sandro
addison: although that's not best practice
#
sandro
r12a: if you happen to have multiple languages, it could be a problem
#
sandro
sandro: sounds like: if you include a body, you should include a content-language
#
sandro
aaronpk: in practice, there's usually very little information returned from API to reduce attack vector
#
sandro
addison: when running in production
#
sandro
aaronpk: in 3.2.3 error responses
#
sandro
addison: when the server is down, you probably don't have a lot more information. It's nice to do i18nish things, but whatever.
paulj joined the channel
#
sandro
aaronpk: send to target URL that doesn't exist
#
sandro
addison: that's okay
#
sandro
.. can leave that section alone
#
sandro
addison: We'd have nothing to comment on if there's no example there.
#
sandro
addison: I dont know what else you'd put in a response body
#
sandro
aaronpk: Some return a data dump, some have an English sentence, etc
#
sandro
.. none of it affects interop
#
sandro
addison: cool
#
sandro
aaronpk: Noting in issue....
#
sandro
aaronpk commented 16 seconds ago
#
sandro
Notes from discussion with i18n:
#
sandro
Remove example english text from response body
#
sandro
Don't include "bad examples" of returning English without returning a language header
#
sandro
Error response section does not need an i18n recommendation because it does not suggest any response body
#
sandro
r12a: we don't have 167 marked as green
#
sandro
addison: your change will get rid of 167 because there's no longer a text/plain
AnnBassetti joined the channel
#
sandro
aaronpk: In POST the body is form-encoded URL
#
sandro
addison: we were just responding to your response examples
#
sandro
addison: These are just URLs, its fine
#
sandro
addison: don't include charset with form-encoded. It's with text/plain.
#
sandro
addison: that's why you MUST pre-define that this is utf-8, because there's no where in the protocol to say that.
#
sandro
aaronpk: we just covered this
#
ben_thatmustbeme
sandro: woohoo
#
ben_thatmustbeme
felt that needed minuting
#
sandro
sandro: we'll be sending you two more specs right away, and two more soon-ish
#
sandro
cwebber2: ActivityPub is unlikely to have much i18n, because it mostly just is a user of AS2
#
Loqi
[Christopher Allan Webber] ActivityPub
#
sandro
csarven: In Linked Data Notification (LDN) it's just HTTP
#
cwebber2
https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/ is linked data notifications
#
sandro
addison: Give us URLs and maybe we can take a quick glance, ... or you can look at our lost
#
addison
s/at our lost/at our list/
#
sandro
addison: And then let us know when you've done that
#
sandro
aaronpk: on json....?
#
sandro
addison: No charset of json, defined as utf8
#
addison
www.org/International/
#
sandro
addison: On our homepage is a huge box on how to request review.
#
sandro
addison: mostly it means send email.
#
sandro
sandro: so review is likely to go more smoothly if we've done the checklist?
#
sandro
addison: generally, but not everything is clear from the checklist
#
sandro
aaronpk: just to clarify, including charset with json is wrong?
#
sandro
addison: that's right, don't do it.
#
sandro
r12a: It's hanging around because I suggested adding a note saying it's useful to including a language when you're dealing with strings
#
sandro
cwebber2: the normalization algorithm loses it. I see.
#
Loqi
[James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0
boris_anthony joined the channel
#
sandro
r12a: In "When using [JSON-LD] mechanisms to produce or consume Activity Streams 2.0 documents, the @language property MAY be used " ... we'd expect SHOULD there
#
sandro
sandro: I think the MAY is about which way you provide lang, not whether you provide lang.
#
sandro
sandro: so maybe somewhere at the start of 4.7 we can say "You should put the language information in there somewhere"