ben_thatmustbeme... needed on the a tag. Other specs seem to not allow it, which is nicer for Discovery, but after looking in to it more, it seems common to allow it
ben_thatmustbemeshould probably just remove any mark-up on the mentions, or add a wrapper class <span class="h-card"><a class="u-url p-nickname mention"> for example
rhiaro... the main blocker this week was that I thought I could get thing implemented without having to do the faux server receiver, but it was necessary because even though this was for c2s server only when you add addressing, the server on the other end might end up posting to the address you're giving and that could result in surprises for the server
cwebber2tantek: I believe we were waiting to see for Sandro to see if this... I think we decided it was a normative change but it didn't impact any existing implementations was more of a clarification? I think Sandro was looking for guidance from Ralph to see if we could publish without resetting the clock
rhiaroRalph: Is this a repeat of [#102][1] or a similar change in another place? - Sandro: "It's similar in feel & scope to #102, but it's different: https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/106"
cwebber2aaronpk: there is an issue from Julian from last week... not sure I want to discuss it with the group, it's a huge change and I think there's no quick resolution to this
cwebber2tantek: from a quick read of this I don't see how this could work with anything that... it could be a reuse of an existing spec, but it could be a brand new feature and i can't tell
cwebber2aaronpk: yes I think there isn't necessarily a clear path forward on this yet. i get what he's trying to do, and I think this specific suggestion isn't the only way to do it. it's possible to do this using something that would make less of an impact on the spec, and that's what we should explore first
cwebber2tantek: last week one of the things we talked about is one of the things we can do to help Mastodon and other emerging social sites adoptions of our specs is one of the examples people have discussed is webmention, and a key to that which would be useful for at least Mastodon is when you receive a webmention and detemine it's valid, how would you tell what kind of post it is?
cwebber2tantek: my proposal is to publish this update to PTD with this use case of when you're trying to determine what kind of valid response it is, what's the easy steps you can take to do the valid PTD parts. what's the valid PTD aspects that are trying to advance current implementations?
cwebber2tantek: yes it's showing an updated, simpler algorithm that I believe reflects existing implementations rather than the current algorithm, so gives a lower barrier to entry. let me link to the exact new section
cwebber2eprodrom: we can do a few things, a proposal to publish a new WD, I don't think the group has had a lot of chance to review, but I don't think it's as high stakes since it's a WD
cwebber2tantek: one paragraph and five items, plus a subset of the existing algorithm rather than a bunch of new things. deliberately tried to constrain changes
cwebber2tantek: I think that's it, there are currently 13 open issues, I think I resolved another one as well, if anyone has any new issues or would like to discuss, otherwise I'll try to keep cranking away and will try to resolve in the best way I can
rhiarocwebber: there are two sections in AP while writing the test suite written with shoulds but seem to belong in security considerations. very difficult to write tests for because they're very suggestive
rhiaro... about making sure you don't just trust that you get this message just because it came along to you and that depends on what mechanism you're using for auth
cwebber2I know sandro specifically argued for making it SocialCG because Socialwg is confusing on the wiki (since you have one uppercase letter but you don't consistently maintain it)
saranix "Discovery via <link> and/or <a> is being considered for removal, please leave your feedback on this via github issues. "
ben_thatmustbeme Hey saranix. I wasn't sure it was really needed on a tah. And
aaronpk hm no agenda today? https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-06-13
Loqi Rhiaro made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2017-06-13]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=103200&oldid=0
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/13-social-irc
cwebber2 PROPOSED: Approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-06-06-minutes as log of last week's meeting.
rhiaro ... the main blocker this week was that I thought I could get thing implemented without having to do the faux server receiver, but it was necessary because even though this was for c2s server only when you add addressing, the server on the other end might end up posting to the address you're giving and that could result in surprises for the server
tantek we consistently used /socialwg and https://www.w3.org/wiki/socialig already