2016-12-06 UTC
bblfish, Loqi__, timbl, jasnell, fabrixxm, Loqi___ and fabrixxm1 joined the channel
Loqi___, jasnell, bitbear, timbl, Loqi and eprodrom joined the channel
dwhly, fabrixxm, jasnell, the_frey and julien joined the channel
annbass and cwebber2 joined the channel
RRSAgent joined the channel
Zakim joined the channel
# 18:13 jasnell yes and no. I cannot join a call but I can answer questions here # 18:13 rhiaro tantek: DO we have a CR draft ready for publication # 18:14 rhiaro sandro: I think Evan's email said he had made all the changes # 18:14 rhiaro tantek: could someone drop a link to the changes? # 18:14 sandro jasnell, have you seen Evan's recent changes? # 18:15 rhiaro tantek: I can't review, so I'm going to leave it to other folks # 18:15 rhiaro ... The key thing is to make sure the stuff that we discussed at the f2f and subsequent telecons # 18:16 rhiaro sandro: Am I right that there's no changes to vocab, just core? # 18:16 rhiaro tantek: if there are other changes, could you take a look at those # 18:17 sandro jasnell, are you okay with this being a new Candidate Recommendation? Do you want more time to review it -- like another day or two to yell if there's a problem? # 18:17 rhiaro "The summary property SHOULD be used as a fallback text representation, possibly automatically generated by the publisher. If there is no name property, the summary property SHOULD NOT include markup, and SHOULD be as short enough to be used as a text representation in the language context. " # 18:17 jasnell sandro: let's do that, I've had a ton of context switching the past couple of days so I wouldn't feel comfortable signing off without a better readthrough # 18:17 rhiaro I don't think I understand the last part of that sentence about language context? # 18:18 jasnell give me until tomorrow and if I don't raise any objections by then go for it # 18:19 rhiaro sandro: We can publish so long as jasnell doesn't raise objections by tomorrow? # 18:19 rhiaro PROPOSED: Publish new CR of AS2, giving people another 24 hours to review, pending no objections # 18:20 cwebber2 distracted by reading documentation, bad call participant! # 18:20 rhiaro RESOLVED: Publish new CR of AS2, giving people another 24 hours to review, pending no objections # 18:21 rhiaro tantek: Next AS2 discussion item is a dependency the Annotation group would like to see resolved # 18:21 rhiaro ... They depend on a bunch of vocabulary terms and want us to go to PR to make sure the terms are stable # 18:22 rhiaro sandro: They were hoping we would go to PR and we talked a bunch in the staff IRC and realised we don't actually need to go to PR for them to be able to reference us, just that we intend to proceed to PR # 18:22 rhiaro tantek: you noted that there's only one term we dont' have implementations for # 18:22 rhiaro sandro: They have at least one implementation, and may have two others # 18:22 rhiaro tantek: If we don't get implementation reports from them for that, we'll drop it, and they should too # 18:22 rhiaro ... I feel we should have this on the record for a resolution # 18:23 sandro PROPOSED: We consider the 12 AS2 terms used by WebAnnotations to be stable and will not substantively change their definitions from those in our 06 September 2016 CR. We expect to go to PR in Jan 2017 and see no likely impediments, given our plan to drop any vocabulary terms lacking 2 impls. We currently lack 2 impls of as:startIndex, but assume Anno can provide them. # 18:23 sandro PROPOSED: We consider the 12 AS2 terms used by WebAnnotations to be stable and will not substantively change their definitions from those in our 06 September 2016 CR. We expect to go to PR in Jan 2017 and see no likely impediments, given our plan to drop any vocabulary terms lacking 2 impls. We currently lack 2 impls of as:startIndex, but assume Anno can provide them. # 18:24 sandro RESOLVED: We consider the 12 AS2 terms used by WebAnnotations to be stable and will not substantively change their definitions from those in our 06 September 2016 CR. We expect to go to PR in Jan 2017 and see no likely impediments, given our plan to drop any vocabulary terms lacking 2 impls. We currently lack 2 impls of as:startIndex, but assume Anno can provide them. # 18:24 sandro The terms are: 3 classes (as:Application | as:OrderedCollection | as:OrderedCollectionPage) and 9 properties (as:first | as:generator | as:items | as:last | as:next | as:partOf | as:prev | as:startIndex | as:totalItems) # 18:25 julien I think? Can't hear hm anymore :/ # 18:25 rhiaro sandro: While we're waiting for tantek, I think that's it for what's explicitly on the agenda # 18:25 rhiaro sandro: Raise your hand if you have a document status update to report # 18:26 julien raises his hand I believe ;) # 18:26 rhiaro various: discussion of aaronpk's problemantic use of emoji # 18:27 rhiaro ... Did everyone see the list of AS2 implementations? # 18:27 rhiaro ... It does make me wonder how many things we're going to have to drop from as2 # 18:27 rhiaro annbass: it's a great way to present that information # 18:28 rhiaro sandro: Shall we go ahead and proceed without tantek? # 18:28 julien I do no have a status report :/ sorry for the confusion # 18:28 rhiaro aaronpk: this is for WebSub, from julien as well # 18:28 rhiaro ... We've been working on getting it ready for CR # 18:29 rhiaro ... I have the editor's draft up to date with the conformance classes and the last trailing issues that julien's been merging in # 18:29 rhiaro ... I have one pendin gPR to add the exit criteria to it # 18:29 rhiaro ... the same stuff that was written in the issue # 18:29 rhiaro ... that should take us to everything we were planning on doing for taking it to CR # 18:30 rhiaro tantek: does that mean you have a CR draft ready? # 18:30 julien PR merged and CR ready # 18:30 rhiaro tantek: any outstanding non-editorial issues open? # 18:31 rhiaro julien: One waiting for commenter feedback, but I don't think there's anything blocking # 18:31 rhiaro ... If we previously resolved on then that should be clear in the issue. If youthink you have a resolution but the commenter hasn't responded yet then walk us through that issue # 18:32 rhiaro ... basically by this discussion we should see if we have zero non-editorial issues that need input from the group # 18:32 rhiaro ... The proposal is to replace rel=self with rel=canonical # 18:32 rhiaro ... I don't think there's any benefit to it, but it would break a lot of implementations # 18:32 rhiaro tantek: do we have a proposal to resovle that issue without changes? # 18:33 rhiaro ... can you propose that both in the issue and IRC # 18:33 rhiaro ... it's currently tagged as waiting for commenter, but the commenter has since replied, an dnobody has answered # 18:33 rhiaro sandro: he phrased as a 'new suggestion', so to close without answering him.. how do you reply? # 18:33 rhiaro julien: I think we should not ?? the rel=canonical urls # 18:34 rhiaro sandro: his point is he wants people to be able to use rel=canonical in their html # 18:34 rhiaro julien: I don't think there is any good reason for it # 18:34 rhiaro aaronpk: everything is the same, except in html people should look for rel=canonical and THEN rel=self # 18:34 rhiaro ... since canonical is already existing, people might already have it, and then wouldn't have to add a new one # 18:34 rhiaro sandro: what does websub use this for? what happens if you don't have either? # 18:35 rhiaro aaronpk: then you don't know what topic url to send # 18:35 rhiaro aaronpk: theoretically the same but some cases where it's not # 18:35 rhiaro ... the spec makes it explicit that it should always use the advertised the value # 18:35 rhiaro tantek: one of my requests from a while ago was that if there's no self then just use the URL of the page # 18:36 rhiaro julien: one of the problems that we've found over and over with feeds is query strings # 18:36 rhiaro ... having urls with query strings, people subscribe to that, but that is not what gets sent to the hub, so the subscriber never gets data # 18:36 rhiaro sandro: the arguements for requiring rel=self, already implemented, but aside, we want to avoid the error cases where the URL is wrong, and rel=canonical might have the wrong URL as well? # 18:36 rhiaro ... a need for a way to identify the topic, should not be implicit, it will fail silently # 18:36 rhiaro ... if it's explicit, I don't see the point in having two possible values # 18:37 rhiaro aaronpk: is there something about rel=canonical that has a different meaning? # 18:37 rhiaro ... the example I could think of is an atom feed sometimes points to a rel=canonical of the html page # 18:37 rhiaro ... so if you want to subscribe to the atom feed, you can't use the rel=canonical that would be wrong # 18:38 rhiaro tantek: the confusion here is from the fact that the term self as an English term si very overloaded # 18:38 rhiaro ... and what it really means is like rel=update. Yes your'e looking at this page, and if you want to get updates of the kind of stuff you see on this page, here's the URL that you subscribe to. That's my understanding of the meaning of rel=self in WebSub # 18:38 rhiaro ... the unfortunate thing is that people see rel=self and think of the english term # 18:39 rhiaro ... it does not mean all the things people think when they see self # 18:39 rhiaro ... and it's unfortunate, but there's so much interop on this I would not propose changing # 18:39 sandro maybe rel='websubChannel" would be the clearest English :-) # 18:39 rhiaro ... maybe an informative note about what does rel=self mean # 18:39 rhiaro ... I do think .. wasn't there an atom rel=self alsothat meant something else? # 18:39 rhiaro julien: ours is the meaning of atom rel=self that we're using here # 18:40 rhiaro sandro: it sounds like if we modify the draft to include a note including what we mean by self # 18:40 aaronpk rel=topic would have been a better choice but that ship has sailed # 18:40 rhiaro ... and tell the commeter we thought about it and are too concerned about the fact that canonical might be different, and we want to keep it a separate relation # 18:41 rhiaro julien: silent failure, if you do not subscribe to a URL that's the one the publisher advertises you will not get data and will not understand why # 18:41 rhiaro aaronpk: most obvious example is query string parameters # 18:41 sandro +1 silent failure is a bigger issue than convemience of re-using rel=canonical # 18:42 rhiaro julien: I will add a note to the spec about why it is like this # 18:42 rhiaro ... as well as why it's important to have a value and not nothing # 18:43 sandro PROPOSED: Add note to spec about the naming of rel='self', and do not change to use rel=canonical at all # 18:44 rhiaro tantek: if you're willing to consider it, julien, the example of IRC logs, really helped convince me when aaronpk told me about that of the value of self # 18:45 annbass try again .. I did have to call back in a bit ago .. maybe it was me # 18:48 rhiaro tantek: I think we had something similar with webmention? # 18:49 rhiaro ... we expect browser like behaviour with discovery # 18:49 julien but then what's the resoltuion tantek? # 18:50 rhiaro sandro: in webmention we reference the URL spec # 18:50 rhiaro tantek: and that's based on what other specs at w3c are doing, and it better reflects how URLs are treated in html, and that's essentially what we're doing, makes more sense than the IETF rfcs # 18:51 rhiaro sandro: one of the counter arguements would be that it is a political statement # 18:51 rhiaro tantek: if anything that's an arguement *for* # 18:51 rhiaro <rhiaro> Is this the one that was updated in webmention with a note to go with it? # 18:51 rhiaro tantek: we should do what web platform wg is doing # 18:51 rhiaro tantek: if there's a question of politics, politial inertia, that's on the side of using the urls pec # 18:52 rhiaro ... there will be people who will be upset with either choice # 18:52 rhiaro tantek: not clear that it will make any difference. Worse for us to be inconsistent # 18:53 rhiaro tantek: we should record if people are upset, and if they implement, and move on # 18:53 sandro +0 not sure about the politics, but I guess, and consistency is important, and we went this way with WebMention # 18:54 rhiaro tantek: unless there are necessary technical reasons for referencing one over another, we should have the TAG say something # 18:55 rhiaro <rhiaro> Do we need that note that was added to webmention too though? # 18:55 rhiaro sandro: I think it's better to ask the commenter to close it # 18:55 rhiaro tantek: as long as we have a group consensus recorded, for the purposes of going to CR, it's better to leave it open as sandro suggests # 18:56 rhiaro sandro: somebody needs to go back and tag the 39 closed issues # 18:57 rhiaro ... so we can have an analysis in the CR transition meeting # 18:57 rhiaro ... most of the ones that don't have tags are by the editors, but still # 18:57 rhiaro ... We do have to check over the closed issues and make sure they are legitimately closed # 18:58 rhiaro tantek: for the open ones, if it doesnt' say editorial then we need a resolution. Any left/ # 18:58 rhiaro tantek: Unless those are mis-tagged I don't think we're going to resolve 3 issues in 2 minutes # 18:58 rhiaro aaronpk: 27 is just waiting on me to write up, already resolved # 18:59 rhiaro ... I dont' remember why it's important any more # 18:59 rhiaro ... and there's a new one after last eweks' call, I haven't analysed yet, 73 # 18:59 rhiaro tantek: sounds like we need more time on that one # 18:59 rhiaro ... I think we have enough edits done that you can publish a new WD with a changelog # 19:00 rhiaro ... preferably with the edits we all just agreed on as of this call # 19:00 rhiaro PROPOSED: Publish a new WD of WebSub including the resolutions from today's call # 19:01 rhiaro RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of WebSub including the resolutions from today's call # 19:01 rhiaro sandro: do the editors want to try to do a CR vote next week? # 19:02 rhiaro might not have time/energy to chase that, too # 19:02 sandro sandro: should we try to super-rush to get it out before the moratorium # 19:04 Zakim As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, rhiaro, cwebber, sandro, julien, annbass, ben_thatmustbeme, ! shepazu and tantek joined the channel
# 19:56 tantek hey we forgot to discuss (or mention) the Webmention PR (voting period closed) at today's telcon! # 19:59 tantek !tell sandro can you give us a brief public update on where we are with Webmention? How did the vote go? When do we hear from W3C team about PR comments and any requests for edits before REC? # 19:59 Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next shepazu and KevinMarks joined the channel
# 21:21 Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed timbl, shepazu, tantek and tantek_ joined the channel
# 23:38 tantek hey aaronpk forgot to add to agenda, ask on call today: webmention issues # 23:38 tantek I filed a few issues on Webmention that other folks at Mozilla brought up # 23:39 tantek they're all requests for non-normative edits except the one reference change I think which doesn't affect conformance AFAIK # 23:42 tantek Sandro will follow-up on process details, but it would be good to have you look at the issues and propose edits to resolve the issues.
Loqi Rhiaro made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2016-12-06]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100857&oldid=100854
eprodrom Loqi help
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-social-irc
sandro PROPOSED: approve last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-11-29-minutes
rhiaro "The summary property SHOULD be used as a fallback text representation, possibly automatically generated by the publisher. If there is no name property, the summary property SHOULD NOT include markup, and SHOULD be as short enough to be used as a text representation in the language context. "
ben_thatmustbeme just realized he missed the call