#social 2016-09-22
2016-09-22 UTC
jasnell, KevinMarks, jasnell_, KevinMarks2, jungbin, ben_thatmustbeme, harry, shepazu and KjetilK joined the channel
timbl, jungbin, tsyesika and mmiya joined the channel
# 
aaronpk here's a hangouts link for our room: https://hangouts.google.com/call/xvjzbgdgzve6rcl7l3sflmucque
paulj and tantek joined the channel
# 
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-social-irc
RRSAgent joined the channel
Zakim and paulcj joined the channel
jungkees joined the channel
lescarr joined the channel
# 
KjetilK present+
# paulcj present +
tkim joined the channel
# 
bigbluehat Present+ Benjamin_Young
# bigbluehat scribenick: bigbluehat
# bigbluehat Topic: Agenda item scheduling
harry joined the channel
# 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
# 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
kaorumaeda joined the channel
# 
tantek observers, please add yourselves to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-22#Observers
# paulcj Paul Jeong, HTML5 Forum in Korea, making korean local social web standard using W3C standard
# 
csarven is http://csarven.ca/#i , editor of https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/ . Invited expert. Working on https://dokie.li/
# 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
# bigbluehat at 15:30
# bigbluehat s/at 15:30/...at 15:30
# bigbluehat ...our end of day will be at 16:30
# bigbluehat ...we have some time to discuss strategy for the next 3 months--which takes us to the end of the charter
# bigbluehat ...after that we have blocks of time for our various CRs
# 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?
# bigbluehat ...then let's go on to strategy for the next 3 months
# bigbluehat Topic: Strategy for the next 3 months
# 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
# bigbluehat tantek: yes! that's a big requirement.
# bigbluehat ...I'd like to underscore that
# bigbluehat sandro: apparently 3 months before CR is when you go out for horizontal review
# bigbluehat tantek: yeah...that was several yester-months ago
# bigbluehat ...at this point, we'd like to get horizontal review ASAP
# 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
# 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
# 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
# bigbluehat ...wider and great horizontal review is the most critical thing at this point
# 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
# 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
# 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
# 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
# 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
# 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
# wseltzer notes https://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter
# bigbluehat cwebber2: maybe somewhere in europe?
# bigbluehat waves to wseltzer :)
# bigbluehat tantek: wseltzer just pointed to our charter
# 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
# 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
# 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
# bigbluehat aaronpk right. that. ;)
# bigbluehat cwebber2: I'm AOK with doing the remote thing
# 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
# 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.
# 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
# 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
# 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
# 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
# bigbluehat aaronpk: so. some of them respond with a formated HTML response that is seen by people
# bigbluehat q+
timbl joined the channel
# 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
KjetilK joined the channel
# 
Loqi Aaronpk made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2016-09-22]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100164&oldid=100009
# Loqi Rhiaro made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2016-09-22]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100165&oldid=100155
# Loqi Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/LDN CR Transition Request]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100166&oldid=0
# Loqi Inword made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-09-22]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100161&oldid=100156
newton and KjetilK joined the channel
# newton present+ newton
Arnaud joined the channel
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
# 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?
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-09-22]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100178&oldid=100165
# bigbluehat tantek: next issue?
# bigbluehat aaronpk: who posted #63?
# 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
# bigbluehat ...wait. is it filled out?
# bigbluehat sandro: specifically https://w3ctag.github.io/security-questionnaire/
# 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
# 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?
# sandro https://www.w3.org/TR/international-specs/ isn't exactly a questionaire...
# bigbluehat tantek: let me split your question
# bigbluehat ...should we be doing self reviews? that's the first question
# bigbluehat ...and that's a yes
# aaronpk here's the checklist https://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs
# bigbluehat ...on the should we put them in the spec question, it depends on the spec
# bigbluehat ...if it's heavily about privacy and security, then that should be there
# bigbluehat s/a13y/a11y
# bigbluehat accessibillitty?
# bigbluehat sandro: another approach to doing this is the issue tracker
# KjetilK has to leave for the airport before 13:00, so I'll sneak out to lunch now
# bigbluehat bigbluehat: that sounds great
# bigbluehat ...and then go to horizontal with those filled out
# 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
# bigbluehat heh...I've been there since before the break
# bigbluehat q-
# 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
# 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
# aaronpk new hangouts url: https://hangouts.google.com/call/xvjzbgdgzve6rcl7l3sflmucque
tkim8 joined the channel
# bigbluehat q+
kaorumaeda joined the channel
annbass joined the channel
# bigbluehat application/ld+json;profile="http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld"
jungbin joined the channel
paulcj joined the channel
# bigbluehat as an aside, here's the application/vnd.error+json specification https://github.com/blongden/vnd.error
# 
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.)
# 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
# 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"
jungbin joined the channel
timbl joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme checks. I thought I supported q=source but i think I had it slightly different
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
# 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
timbl joined the channel
# 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
# bigbluehat cwebber2 it looks like you need to do: s/thing/newthing/ (so in the earlier case the "er" prevented it from working...apparently)
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk, I can probably help with the template too
newton joined the channel
jasnell joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme s/cyc has been/cweiske has been/
# sandro static snapshot of that output: https://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out
paulj_ joined the channel
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-social-minutes.html aaronpk
KevinMarks joined the channel
kaorumaeda joined the channel
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.
paulj joined the channel
# 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
# bigbluehat aaronpk: see the `variant` parameter
# 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
boris_anthony joined the channel
# 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
Arnaud joined the channel
# 
@bigbluehat "caffeinated" is a personal "At Risk" feature right now at #TPAC2016 ...time for a break @SocialWebWG #amiright?! (twitter.com/_/status/778958859679531013)
# bigbluehat +0 on the feature; +1 on the "at risk"-ness of it
# bigbluehat and everyone go research MIME and Email :)
shepazu and newton joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme present+
# 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
newton, r12a and dae_ joined the channel
# sandro resolved: close https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/39 with everyone happy
atai2 joined the channel
newton joined the channel
# bigbluehat Content-Language: computer ;)
paulj joined the channel
AnnBassetti joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: woohoo
# ben_thatmustbeme felt that needed minuting
# cwebber2 https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/ is activitypub
# cwebber2 https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/ is linked data notifications
# addison s/at our lost/at our list/
# addison www.org/International/
boris_anthony joined the channel
jasnell joined the channel
Arnaud and atai joined the channel
newton joined the channel
tantek joined the channel
AnnBassetti joined the channel
# addison I think we are coming to the conclusion that we (I18N) might ought to do a review
jasnell and jasnell_ joined the channel
# fsasaki rrsagent, draft minutes
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-social-minutes.html fsasaki
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-social-minutes.html trackbot
# AnnBassetti any plans for WG ?????? tonight?
# AnnBassetti (e.g., dinner)
# AnnBassetti gotta go facilitate ...
# AnnBassetti I will be once I get out of AC meeting
# r12a ancient emoji from e-gypt: https://r12a.github.io/uniview/?block=egyptian_hieroglyphs
shepazu joined the channel
boris_anthony joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme emoji URL regex?!
# AnnBassetti sounds good, tantek!
# ben_thatmustbeme yikes
paulj, shepazu, jungbin, KevinMarks, newton, KevinMarks2, strugee, tantek, jasnell, kaorumaeda and kaorumaeda_ joined the channel