2016-11-01 UTC
jasnell, tantek, shepazu and jasnell_ joined the channel
Karli, Karli_, jasnell, sandro, tantek and jasnell_ joined the channel
# 15:18 tantek so far all the alternatives proposed have been worse, and the remaining complaints seem to be mostly tempests in teapots # 15:18 tantek does anyone have any serious suggestions? or serious reasons to justify existing suggestions? # 15:18 rhiaro I think including Hub in it is a useful distinction from the generic idea # 15:19 rhiaro that's why the specific spec should be distinguished # 15:19 aaronpk google "pubsub" and you will find lots of different pubsub things, in many different incarnations # 15:20 aaronpk this spec is one specific incarnation of the pubsub idea # 15:20 rhiaro and having Hub not at the end, I understand helps with pronunciation # 15:20 aaronpk what's the distinguishing feature of this pubsub over others? # 15:20 tantek it's fine, it's not the first time a generic concept word has been used to name a specific technology # 15:21 tantek and frankly, within days of people blogging about it, it will become discoverable in search results # 15:21 aaronpk eh, there's a lot of pubsub things before this will bubble to the top # 15:22 tantek Google Cloud post-dates PuSH so that should not be a problem # 15:23 rhiaro if you google 'pubsub' everything that shows up is 'pub/sub' # 15:23 tantek rhiaro, like I said, that'll be fixed over time # 15:24 tantek just write a series of posts on "Introducing W3C PubSub" # 15:25 tantek the key aspects to PuSH are the Pub and the Sub. The use of a separate Hub is optional. # 15:25 rhiaro oh really? I thought the hub was like the point # 15:26 tantek so from a naming meaning perspective, keeping Pub and Sub are essential, and Hub not so much (in following up to rhiaro's suggestion of PubSubHub or PubHub or HubPub - which sounds too much like Hubbub) # 15:26 aaronpk it doesn't have to be a third party hub, but it has to be there # 15:26 tantek it can be the same server as the pub, that's the point # 16:02 ben_thatmustbeme all the hubbub over pubsub vs pubhub vs subhub vs blubblub just rubrubs me as pointless. lets just scrubscrub our hands of it, stick with pubsub and go get some grubgrub # 16:05 ben_thatmustbeme i'm at the point where i really don't care. bikeshedding a name is a waste of brain cycles. so I just say we stick with pubsub # 16:05 wilkie I'd rather it be something other than PubSub and I don't really care what that is heh # 16:06 rhiaro IfYouAreTooTiredToSendStuffOutDelegateItToSomeOtherServer tantek joined the channel
# 16:11 wilkie relegated delivery, relegated push/publishing, relegated sending, ReleSent # 16:12 rhiaro 'delivery' in it it makes me want to know if it helps me get pizza # 16:12 aaronpk it also appears HubCast is not already a technology term # 16:12 rhiaro I think the H being in the middle was difficult # 16:14 rhiaro Hmm. HubCast sounds nice, but maybe loses the point. Gah. # 16:15 rhiaro extends meeting 60 minutes to compensate for this discussion # 16:16 rhiaro ooh feeder lets you have all kinds of monster-type logos # 16:16 aaronpk thinks we should stay away from "feed" as that is too closely tied to RSS # 16:17 wilkie we can't use feed and we also can't use stream then # 16:19 aaronpk I kind of like "HubCast", let's let that sit for a while # 16:28 sandro I like HubCast, but do worry about losing the PuSH recognition # 16:30 wilkie HubCast and Hubbub are both good at not being PubSub # 16:33 csarven Can we cram more terms in there? Just to cover everything/ # 16:35 rhiaro I'm glad we got this out of the way before the call # 16:35 wilkie we haven't actually gotten it out of the way yet # 16:36 wilkie let's just market poll HubCast, HubPub, Hubbub, and PubSub # 16:38 wilkie I'm now leaning away from cast because it seems the data is meant to be emphemeral haha # 16:38 aaronpk hm, i guess that still makes sense to me, since the notification itself is ephemeral # 16:40 cwebber2 speaking of "good noises" could we just call it "psh" # 16:41 wilkie we can make good use of PuSH already having a long history of being called pubsubbubhubbubbub in face-to-face conversation # 16:42 csarven Can someone remind me why we decided not to stick to the original name? # 16:46 sandro csarven, I think every agrees pubsubhubbub us an awkwardly long name for a tech, and PuSH is awkwardly ambiguous and misleading # 16:46 sandro (which doesn't mean we should change it, just that that name has some negatives.) annbass and tantek joined the channel
KevinMarks joined the channel
# 17:00 tantek so whoever claims force quitting iOS apps doesn't do anything is wrong RRSAgent joined the channel
Zakim joined the channel
julien joined the channel
# 17:04 Zakim Present: aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro # 17:04 Zakim ... csarven, pdurbin, bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, trackbot # 17:04 Zakim On IRC I see julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, KevinMarks, tantek, annbass, jasnell_, sandro, shepazu, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, wseltzer, strugee, oshepherd, cwebber2, wilkie, raucao, # 17:05 Zakim Present: aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro, sandro # 17:05 Zakim On IRC I see julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, KevinMarks, tantek, annbass, jasnell_, sandro, shepazu, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, wseltzer, strugee, oshepherd, cwebber2, wilkie, raucao, # 17:05 Zakim ... csarven, pdurbin, bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, trackbot # 17:06 julien I am trying to call in # 17:06 Loqi Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting at MIT (F2F8) KevinMarks2 joined the channel
# 17:09 rhiaro tantek: congrats, fastest to publication from FPWD # 17:10 rhiaro ... The announcement goes out, to the AC for a vote # 17:10 rhiaro ... Composed of w3c members and assuming a sufficient number of them say yes, and no formal objections, it proceeds to rec # 17:10 rhiaro ... I forget how many weeks they have to vote KevinMarks joined the channel
# 17:11 rhiaro ... In particular I want to encourage everyone who has yet to file an implementation report to please do so # 17:11 rhiaro ... But for the PR, now it's going to every member of W3C that they need to vote on # 17:11 rhiaro ... one of the things they look at is who is implementing it, how many there are # 17:11 rhiaro ... These might be people who have never heard of it before # 17:12 rhiaro ... So the more implementations we have, the more it looks like ther'es a community, it looks real # 17:12 rhiaro ... I would recommend that our other CRs look at that and see if they can use the pattern in terms of providing a summary # 17:12 rhiaro aaronpk: I don't think I have anything to add # 17:12 sandro FWIW -- LDN FPWD -> CR in 98 days (aka 3.2 months aka 14 weeks) # 17:13 rhiaro tantek: It appears that there are more implementation reports than there are in the summary, correct? Is it behind? # 17:13 rhiaro ... there are more things in that folder than are in the summary, but they're not all reports # 17:13 rhiaro tantek: I was seeing ten implementation reports # 17:13 rhiaro aaronpk: yeah there are ten in the summary and in the folder # 17:14 Zakim Present: aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro, sandro, wilkie, cwebber, julien # 17:14 Zakim On IRC I see KevinMarks, julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, tantek, annbass, jasnell_, sandro, shepazu, ben_thatmustbeme, KjetilK, wseltzer, strugee, oshepherd, cwebber2, wilkie, raucao, # 17:14 Zakim ... csarven, pdurbin, bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, trackbot # 17:15 rhiaro ... The current Ed which we had discussed releasing a new WD of, with a changelog # 17:15 rhiaro ... I have the links to the implementation report and test suite, but they're not in place. I just registered the domain. They're is not actually anything there, I was told I need to get the stubs in there # 17:15 rhiaro sandro: but there will be at least a landing page? # 17:16 rhiaro ... In terms of wide review, I've collected in addition to issues the offlist feedback Iv'e had # 17:16 rhiaro ... That I've requested I can make it public, there are very large amounts of detailed feedback here from people outside the group # 17:17 rhiaro ... So I'll hadn off to tantek to ask what the next step is and if we can request a vote to move to CR # 17:17 rhiaro ... I know you've been working really hard on those # 17:17 rhiaro cwebber2: The only issues left open are all editorial, except for one which is postponed that we talked about last week # 17:17 rhiaro sandro: the non-editorial ones are todo list items? # 17:18 rhiaro ... Having links in the draft should satisfy the test suite and reporting section.. # 17:18 rhiaro tantek: I believe that's covered, not an issue against the draft # 17:19 rhiaro ... The AP terms and AS2 context, I'm not entirely sure what that needs # 17:19 rhiaro rhiaro: I took that as a todo, still haven't done it, will do # 17:20 rhiaro cwebber2: rhiaro and I need to work on making sure that happens # 17:20 rhiaro tantek: if you want to add that to the CR transition request as something that we'll call out so ralph can see we're taking care of it # 17:20 rhiaro <rhiaro> I'd hope to have that done before the transition call, but yeah # 17:21 rhiaro tantek: if we can get to CR before the f2f that would be great # 17:21 rhiaro ... This is awesome, as far as I can tell you've checked off all the itmes # 17:22 rhiaro I note that csarven added a +1 to this last week on the wiki # 17:23 rhiaro tantek: you've had more last minute issues than any other spec we've seen chris, so that's a lot of hard work, well done # 17:23 rhiaro tantek: rhiaro, setup a transition call, let's make this happen # 17:23 rhiaro ... I don't see any issues with the call based on our experience to date # 17:24 rhiaro cwebber2: another happy bit of news is we had someone external email me and plan to do an implementation and even put it on the site of the thing they're working on # 17:24 rhiaro ... a federated hackernews/reddit alternative # 17:25 rhiaro julien: there are a lot of open issues, we've discussed and closed # 17:25 rhiaro ... The naming issue is still bothering me. I don't know what to do here. # 17:25 rhiaro ... Any other issues you might want our help with? # 17:25 rhiaro julien: Looks like there are 23 open issues. Are there any that you believe you could make faster pgoress on with input from the group? # 17:26 rhiaro julien: fat pings vs thin pings... I was very confused by the turn of the discussion # 17:26 Zakim cwebber, you wanted to discuss after PuSH talk to vote on new WD of AP # 17:27 rhiaro PROPOSAL: publish existing ED as a WD immediately # 17:29 rhiaro aaronpk: This is about issue 27, I created this to try to ask for help finding documentation on current behaviour of fat pings # 17:30 rhiaro ... In my research I was not able to find much about the actual payload that's sent in fat pings # 17:30 rhiaro ... But I'm still not super happy with the state of this # 17:30 rhiaro ... The main goal of this thread was if the spec is going to recommend or rquire that fat pings are used it absolutely must say what the payload is # 17:30 rhiaro ... Otherwise it's not really useful as a suggestion # 17:30 rhiaro ... So I was hoping to collect examples of what people are sending in order to turn that into the recommendation of what the content is # 17:31 rhiaro julien: for wordpress and google and superfeedr, we tried to point to the PuSH spec which we thought was giving a good description of the contents of the payload # 17:31 rhiaro ... being a diff of what was being subscribed to # 17:31 rhiaro ... the hub MUST send fat pings, but we cna't prevent the subscriber from ignoring that fat ping # 17:31 rhiaro ... the other source of confusion is the spec describes this vague idea of diffingw ithout actually saying it works # 17:32 rhiaro julien: that's a problem I've had for a long time # 17:32 rhiaro ... diffing has different meanings based on the content type # 17:32 rhiaro ... you could diff on the entry level... what does it mean for a json document? # 17:32 rhiaro ... I'm not sure what's the right approach here # 17:32 rhiaro ... I'd rather diff based on the capabilities of the content type # 17:32 rhiaro ... rather than a dumb diff on the text level # 17:32 rhiaro ... but if we have to do that to make the spec forward, but I'd rather not # 17:33 rhiaro aaronpk: that's why I wanted to collect examples of what is done with rss, atom, html, json, and looking at actual examples # 17:33 rhiaro ... I totally agree having content type specific idffing is way more useful # 17:33 rhiaro ... but I couldn't find what is being done right now # 17:33 rhiaro julien: We talk about diffing, maybe there's room for saying that rather than diffing by default the hub sends the full content of the resource and the client has to find what is new or different in the payload # 17:33 rhiaro ... that would basically mean the hub doesn't have to deal with diffing # 17:34 rhiaro ... the subscriber has to find a way to identify what's missing, new or updated # 17:34 rhiaro aaronpk: I think that's an acceptable solution # 17:34 rhiaro sandro: I'm a big fan of ... there are conflicting things between simplicity and efficiency # 17:34 rhiaro ... simplicity would be just send the new content, but in some cases that would be painfully inefficient and we'd wish we could send a diff # 17:34 rhiaro ... In terms of technology for diffs, within the general http stack I think that's mostly under patch, right? # 17:35 rhiaro ... I dont' know how much the PATCH verb has caught on. I've seen a couple of media types, two different json patch media types # 17:35 rhiaro ... that seems like th eright... however people are using PATCH # 17:35 rhiaro ... if you're using json-patch to patch json,t hen presumably you should be sending that as your fat ping # 17:35 rhiaro julien: then the spec would just leave ?? the right diffing mechanism to each content type # 17:35 rhiaro ... if you're using json you us ejson-patch, if your'e using rss/atom then you do per entry # 17:36 tantek good question re: PATCH (how much has it caught on?). IMO from a newish W3C process perspective, PATCH has been insufficien tly incubated (not enough actual prototyping to show that it's worth depending on). # 17:36 rhiaro sandro: the problem with that is that there isn't one... there are at least 2 different json-patch protocols # 17:36 rhiaro julien: it's worse for images, how do you diff an image? # 17:36 rhiaro sandro: I think if you don't have a good diff mechanism... you could do it, complicates the protocol maybe, when you're sending a patch the way you're supposed to know what media type ot use is you get an accept-patch header earlier in the process # 17:37 rhiaro ... if we can fit that in the hub could, if it gets an accept patch, and it knows how to do that media type,then it MAY or SHOULD send patches using that # 17:37 tantek q+ to note need to separate what we *could* do with PubSub, vs. what documenting (specing) what we believe implementations *already do* # 17:37 rhiaro ... if it doesn't know that, it sends the whole content # 17:37 rhiaro ... at the hub level we look at the accept header upon subscription # 17:37 rhiaro ... if they accept json we do the conversion form rss to json # 17:37 rhiaro ... and when the content updates we send the json rather than rss # 17:37 rhiaro ... this could work for me, saying what the subscriber provides defines what the hub sends in the notification # 17:38 rhiaro ... and we need a way for the hub to tell the subscriber that it doesn't understand the accep theader # 17:38 rhiaro sandro: There is this accept patch header in rfc # 17:38 rhiaro ... we have to see what the logic there is, along with the logic pubsub uses, and see if they can fit together # 17:39 rhiaro tantek: sounds like you and aaron were coming to some common understanding? # 17:39 rhiaro julien: I'll start working on the summary and then aaron we can iterate from there # 17:39 Zakim tantek, you wanted to note need to separate what we *could* do with PubSub, vs. what documenting (specing) what we believe implementations *already do* # 17:40 rhiaro ... I think it's good to consider how pubsub could do this in ideal conditions, maybe in the future. However for the purposes of what we need to scope and ship in this WG we need to limit ourselves to what we believe implementations already do and use that as a very strong constraint # 17:40 rhiaro ... If there is a potentially better solution with diffing or patch or something which we don't know or we don't know of any implementations, that may be worth opening as a separate issue, as like an enhancement request, but not necessarily for this version of pubsub # 17:40 rhiaro ... which I believe pretty strongly we need to constrain to what we have implementations doing today # 17:41 rhiaro ... it may be that diffs and patch are all a straightforward obvious extesnion and the part we standardise here is always about sending the whole content # 17:41 rhiaro tantek: we're not trying to shut down discussion, its' good for us to keep an open mind # 17:42 rhiaro ... if it ends up that solidifies into an extension that we can tell people to start playing with, that's great, but it's a different scope and timeline than the pubsub spec itself # 17:42 rhiaro ... we might even manage to publish an extension as a note, but I don't think I'd want that to delay the spec itself # 17:43 rhiaro ... Sounds like we have a good understanding of issues 27 and 35 # 17:43 rhiaro ... sandro, could you open that as an enhancement request issue # 17:44 rhiaro ... julien if you could separate the optimal way form what implementations to today # 17:44 rhiaro julien: most of the other ones are either fixes that are obvious or clear decisions, eg. the algorithms in the signature # 17:44 rhiaro ... I don't think there are other significant ones, but maybe someone will disagree... one oabout the verbs but I don't thin it's worth changing what we've done so far # 17:45 rhiaro ... we were using GET and POST in ways that did not necessarily abide by the rest philosophy # 17:46 rhiaro aaronpk: I agree no change is needed for that. Seems to be a slightly unusual use of a GET but not the end of the world, and it's what everyone does already # 17:47 rhiaro tantek: is there a security issue with potential misuse of get? # 17:47 rhiaro julien: one person also suggested that we use a signature mechanism for setting up subscription # 17:47 rhiaro ... and I think that would solve security misuse of GET in that context # 17:48 rhiaro julien: what I"ll do is put a longer comment in the issue thread and maybe not close it right away, and ask for feedback # 17:49 rhiaro ... if it comes ot a point wher eyou're not making any progress but you feel like you have some consensus, then bring it back to the WG so we can close it and move forward # 17:49 rhiaro sandro: This is one of these cases where this comes up with a potentially breaking change. We're all tryign to do this without any breaking changes so that all existing implementatios remain conformant. If we have to do a breaking change we'll think long and hard about it. right? # 17:49 rhiaro julien: Definitely to try to maintain everything or at least provide only little change. This would be very significant # 17:50 rhiaro tantek: I tend to agree. I personally would need to see for a breaking change, a security flaw that would motivate the current implementations to update # 17:50 rhiaro ... Anything short of that I'm not sure I would support # 17:50 rhiaro sandro: I'd be hesitant to do anything that would fork the community into people who are still using pre-w3c PuSH # 17:50 rhiaro ... I want them to be on board without doing anything # 17:51 rhiaro tantek: maybe that's something we can resolve # 17:51 rhiaro sandro: I don't think we need to make a formal policy # 17:52 rhiaro tantek: I don't really want to use twitter poll sfor this type of thing... # 17:52 rhiaro aaronpk: an interesting survey of people who are not us, not a deciding factor # 17:53 rhiaro sandro: one of the problems I have with pubsubhubbub as a name is the abbreviate of PuSH. This is not 'push' as a web developer understands it # 17:53 rhiaro ... specifically server to client, which is not the webhook kind of thing that this is # 17:53 rhiaro aaronpk: that's true, and also server to phone, apple and google's push apis # 17:53 rhiaro sandro: push is all the way to the end user, not an internal node to node like pubsubhubbub is # 17:53 annbass Seems like a good point, from a 'novice' Point of view # 17:53 rhiaro tantek: I guess I always thought of what you're calling push as server push... I can see your poing # 17:54 rhiaro julien: this is just one of the problems with the naming # 17:54 rhiaro ... all of the names have been used before for something else # 17:54 rhiaro ... hard to find somehting both new and descriptvie # 17:54 rhiaro tantek: let me try to roll this back. We had a strong consensus to go with pubsub last time we discussed this, f2f in Lisbon # 17:55 Zakim sees cwebber, aaronpk on the speaker queue # 17:55 rhiaro ... to change that we're going to need new information that we did not come up with in the discussion # 17:55 rhiaro ... We knew pubsub was generic backthen, we decided to go with it anyway # 17:55 cwebber2 ok, what I was going to say, I think we agreed on pubsub for the short name # 17:55 rhiaro ... we knew that it was superior to pubsubhubbub in terms of pronunctiation, especially for non-native English speakers # 17:56 rhiaro sandro: I hadn't thought about the search problem when we had that discussion # 17:56 cwebber2 personally I don't care if we leave it as pubsubhubbub... at least people know what that is # 17:56 rhiaro ... like in regsitries, not just search engines, don't have smart search # 17:56 rhiaro julien: definitely, the name is taken everywehre # 17:56 rhiaro tantek: the web search arguement I'm not as worried about # 17:56 rhiaro ... pubsubhubbub has a lot of history and uptake in the past so it's easier to find # 17:57 rhiaro ... web search is a lagging indicator of uptake # 17:57 Zakim sees cwebber, aaronpk on the speaker queue # 17:57 rhiaro sandro: the name pubsub is never going to be unambiguous # 17:57 rhiaro ... eg. redis has a pubsub, their modules show up as well # 17:57 rhiaro tantek: so if it's already a problem why should we ..? # 17:58 rhiaro <rhiaro> I didn't think of the search/generic thing # 17:58 rhiaro tantek: anyone else changed their mind since f2f? # 17:58 rhiaro aaronpk: In our meeting minutes we did specifically resolve to use pubsub as the short name for now # 17:59 rhiaro sandro: it's not like we talked about it a whole lot at the f2f # 17:59 rhiaro <rhiaro> I definitely don't think we agreed to use it as main name, only shortname # 17:59 rhiaro tantek: My recollection was that we resolved on both # 17:59 Zakim sees aaronpk, different on the speaker queue # 17:59 annbass Can we use pubsub, but w acronym different than 'PuSh' # 17:59 Zakim sees aaronpk, different on the speaker queue # 17:59 Zakim sees aaronpk, rhiaro on the speaker queue # 17:59 rhiaro sandro: one middleground is the same way pubsubhubbu is abbreviated PuSH we could keep using pubsub as a convenient reference to pubsubhubbub # 18:00 rhiaro ... but we refer to it as pubsub for convienience # 18:00 rhiaro is sick of typing pubsubhubbub, please can we change it # 18:00 rhiaro ... The issue doesn't seem like a productive way to having this discusson # 18:00 rhiaro ... Or we could open a wiki page that lists each of the serious proposals for a name, incluidng the original # 18:00 Zakim sees rhiaro, cwebber on the speaker queue # 18:00 rhiaro ... and people can document the pros and cons of each # 18:01 rhiaro ... and that way we capture the current state of why any particular name is good or bad # 18:01 rhiaro ... and also they could put a +1 or -1 and name next to any one # 18:02 rhiaro tantek: use this wiki page for this discussion # 18:02 Zakim sees rhiaro, cwebber on the speaker queue # 18:02 rhiaro ... We should document this in case in the future namechange comes up again # 18:02 Zakim sees rhiaro, cwebber on the speaker queue # 18:03 annbass If this isn't traditional push, then does that wiki name confuse things? # 18:03 rhiaro rhiaro: my recollection from the f2f is that we resolved only on the short name, and expected to change the spec name # 18:04 rhiaro annbass: I think it's important not to bias the discussion, is calling the wiki page push going to confuse things? # 18:05 cwebber2 I think the wiki page is great, but naming also the ultimate bikeshed # 18:05 rhiaro tantek: that's a perfectly reasonable proposal # 18:05 rhiaro ... perhaps add as a comment on the issue and we can proceed from there # 18:07 rhiaro aaronpk: I have a list of all of the componants to test and I have the framework now, website set up, will make progress on actually creating some of the tests # 18:08 rhiaro ... julien, you understand aaron is working on it, have you been talking? # 18:08 rhiaro aaronpk: best place to follow is the issues on this repo # 18:08 julien feel free to share the repo aaron # 18:08 rhiaro ... If we rename the spec I'll get a new .rocks domain # 18:08 rhiaro sandro: do we somewhere have a list of implementations? at least hubs? # 18:09 rhiaro aaronpk: the only list I know of is on the indieweb wiki # 18:09 rhiaro julien: I know there was one on google code, that's gone... I'll try to find one # 18:10 rhiaro ... just wanted to figure out if we'll be able tog et through CR quickly # 18:11 rhiaro sandro: publisher and subscriber are pretty easy # 18:11 rhiaro <rhiaro> unless subscriber needs to do diffing :p # 18:12 rhiaro ... Is that good enough to link to from the draft? # 18:12 rhiaro aaronpk: if you want to link to something from the draft link to the .rocks domain, or wait until we finalise the name # 18:12 rhiaro tantek: I guess we just file an issue on the spec to link # 18:13 tantek PROPOSED: published new WD of SWP with updated status of our drafts # 18:14 tantek RESOLVED: publish new WD of SWP with updated status of our drafts # 18:14 rhiaro tantek: next week we're meeting on the 8th, evan is chair, and all of our daylight savings should be gone by next week # 18:15 Zakim As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro, sandro, wilkie, cwebber, julien # 18:15 Loqi tantek has 48 karma in this channel (309 overall) # 18:15 Loqi rhiaro has 135 karma in this channel (246 overall) # 18:16 Zakim As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, tantek, annbass, rhiaro, sandro, wilkie, cwebber, julien RRSAgent joined the channel
KevinMarks joined the channel
KevinMarks and KevinMarks2 joined the channel
KjetilK_ joined the channel
# 20:33 Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed KevinMarks, jasnell and tantek joined the channel
# 23:59 tantek amy, sandro - do you know how we (chairs / staff) can make blog posts here: https://www.w3.org/blog/ (as other WG chairs (including non-W3C-team people) seem to be able to) ? # 23:59 tantek !tell rhiaro,sandro do you know how we (chairs / staff) can make blog posts here: https://www.w3.org/blog/ (as other WG chairs (including non-W3C-team people) seem to be able to) ? # 23:59 Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
aaronpk if we're gonna rename this, i want to settle on the new name ASAP https://aaronparecki.com/uploads/Screen-Shot-2016-11-01-08-17-56.png
tantek nah, the spec is PubSub, upper camel case as it were https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_case#Variations_and_synonyms
ben_thatmustbeme all the hubbub over pubsub vs pubhub vs subhub vs blubblub just rubrubs me as pointless. lets just scrubscrub our hands of it, stick with pubsub and go get some grubgrub
cwebber2 speaking of distributed systems https://twitter.com/b0rk/status/793288477060263936
Loqi [@b0rk] slowly learning a few things about distributed systems https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwJTqQTWcAA173h.jpg
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/01-social-irc
julien I am trying to call in
sandro https://tools.ietf.org/html//rfc5789 ACCEPT-PATCH
@DataG Linked Data Notifications | W3C specification https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/ (twitter.com/_/status/793532333001277440)
csarven ^^ Customers. ehh.. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YKUOB8MN4Kc/hqdefault.jpg :P