rhiaroaaronpk: there was some discussion on 146, after the call I added the paragraph we talked about to security considerations. We didn't get al ot of additional feedback on that afterwards
rhiaro... the ecosystem is cogniscent of the issue, which is what the security considerations section is for, so the ecosystem will evolve in the right direction
rhiaroeprodrom: I've spent a lot more time thinking about this issue than I'd have liked. I think with security considerations (??) we should move on to other parts of websub
rhiaro... I don't htink we have thought of any situations that are meaningfully different between 307 and 308. I don't think we have any additional text we need to add. What do others think?
rhiarotantek: I feel like 307 and 308 were added because people treated 301 and 302 this way in the past. I would advise against saying treat them the same
rhiaroaaronpk: treating them the same as in 307 is temporary and 308 is permanent so you would not store the permanent redirect if you got a temporary one, but if you got a permanent redirect you'd update the hub url
rhiaro... where things would be interesting is if the machine understood 308 and made some change, but that's not what anybody does with 308 as far as I understand it, I don't think we want to go there
rhiaroaaronpk: also this is the section about clients subscribing, so the client is only ever going to hit the hub url after it's discovered the hub url
rhiaro... after 1 redirect it's gonna either discover the same old hub url as the topic the next time or the topic is going to be updated to point to the new hub url
rhiaroaaronpk: what I mean is, even if they store it they're going to be discovering either the old or new url again the next time they subscribe because they have to go through discovery again
rhiaro... they didn't want to change the colours because the images are supplementary to the text, there's nothing in the images that isn't said by the text and the colours were chosen specifically to convey information that would not be as well conveyed if we changed the colours
rhiarocwebber2: I see what they're saying about the colours being to convey information. I think it wouldn't look as nice if I adjusted the contrast. I know they also chose the colours to not specifically convey a racial profile on the characters
rhiaroeprodrom: I'm of two minds, this seems like a really small thing to be putting all this attention into, but putting attention into accessibility is always if i'ts not a problemfor you it seems like a small thing, but if it is a problem for you it is a big thing
rhiaroaaronpk: I agree with Chris. I think a simple solution is to use white for the letters of the text to increase the contrast. Would mean we don't have to change any colours
rhiarocwebber2: I feel like this can go down a deep bikeshed. We do have all the relevent information in the surrounding area. It would b enice if we can resolve this and preserve the aesthetics
rhiarocwebber2: we could, but I would prefer we try to handle it out of band and see if they're happy with it, cos I'd prefer to not get a response like turn it black and white
rhiaroben_thatmustbeme: there hasn't been any changes in jf2 recently, it's at a fairly stable point. I've started to prep some things ready for a note. I don't know that there's much else to do
rhiarotantek: I think i'ts less seroius than an updated working draft because we're saying .. we do need to resolve on a change like saying it's no longer rec track, we're going to finish it as a note
rhiaro... our next meeting is on the 19th which is the day after the moratorium.. I guess we could publish in the new year i fwe had voted to do so previously?
rhiarotantek: we discussed this last week, we can do everything to publish, and issue the publication request before the WG closes, just the publication won't happen until the new year, I believe
rhiaroeprodrom: you had mentioned taking out the implementations section and it looks like that's already been done, so are there changes that need to be done in the next couple of weeks or are we ready to go?
rhiarotantek: in particular since I was working on PTD for rec track I was being a lot more diligent about issue tracking and trying to make things properly normative text. If you feel like this is something you must properly review please take a look at the issues and comment on the issues that you care about taht you want to see resolved before publication
rhiaro... I'm specifically making this request because i'm obviously working on the document and I'm hoping to either get folks to contribute to the issues, or i fyou don't care then I'm going to expect that you'll +0 this in two weeks or something, than raise an objection. Please raise objections of any kind now rather than in two weeks
rhiaro... from many many wiki pages on the indieweb wiki which were documenting tutorials and such and this is basically a note that captures the current state of things
rhiaroeprodrom: we have not previously done any kind of document around indieauth. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just want to make sure this is really late in the game. The idea would be that we would take what... it is an important part of the stack that includes micropub. It makes it relevent to what we're doing. I guess .. I wonder if it's .. is there a reason that the SWWG needs to be the one to publish this instead of having it in the socialCG or something
rhiaroaaronpk: I think the fact that it's actually in use and implemented by SWWG specs is one aspect of that. This is not an aspirational spec, it is literally capturing what has been implemented
rhiaro... My seocnd question is that procedurally what we would be doing is that the group would be reviewing this and the other note track documents for the 19th
rhiaroeprodrom: I'm not tryign to be resistent to it, it's obviously important, it just hasn't had the same level of discussion in this group as the others have had
rhiarotantek: the question I would ask is does the spec distinguish between what's implemented interoperably, vs things that maybe only one implementation does
rhiaroeprodrom: I think best case in this situation is generating issues and resolving them, by the time we get to our 12/19 meeting we have a sense as a group that htis is a well thought out document that we're comfortable publishing as a note
rhiaro... if we feel like we get to 12/19 and we have 10 unresolved issues and there's still a lot of conversation I'm not sure it makes sense for the WG to publish it
rhiaro... Assuming there are open issues on the notes, I would expect each note to describe exactly what happens to the material in the note. In other words, where is the note being maintained beyond the WG. In the CG? In indieweb.org? Or some other third party?
rhiarotantek: have any of our recs received issues post rec? Have the editors determined we need to make changes and determine errata? And has anyone tried publishing errata anywhere?
rhiaro... it's handled by the staff contact on their own time, and the editors. Whoever *was* staff contact 20 years ago, is usually still consulted, and the editors
rhiaroeprodrom: I guess my feeling is I would expect that the CG would start treating these documents as historical artifiacts of the past to be built upon
rhiarotantek: one of the things webmention implementaion report mentions is interoperable implemenations of the vouch extension. Is this a potential note? I don't have it written up now, just a wiki page
rhiaroeprodrom: just from aprocess standpoint w'ere at a point where we have 4 documents for the group to review for 2 weeks from now. Adding a fifth might be a little bit too much to ask
rhiaro... If there is a document that is ready for review before next week that's circulated and we have had enough people have read it by two weeks from now that we consider it for voting, I think it makes sense. Otherwise it's something for the future
rhiaro... I think it's important, I do know that vouch is an important part of security in the webmention universe. It's okay for stuff to get published after we finish :D
rhiarocwebber2: I'm cochair of the CG, aaron also needs to address this. I'm happy to take on errata work in the CG along with extensions. I'm unclear as to whether that's the right thing to do process wise
tantekwebsub diff looks good sandro, just the heads up about the bikesheddy change to the phrase "content distribution" instead of notification - but has no normative impact, no impl impact etc.
Loqi[Festive Eugen] @th3j35t3r Hey that's a violation of the AGPLv3 license of Mastodon. Users must have access to the source code of the application they are using.
@literarymachine Can https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/ be the https://ifttt.com for library land? #swib17 (twitter.com/_/status/937972571760406528)
@dustyweb ActivityPub made it to Proposed Recommendation! Woooo! https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
Now we just need to wait on member vote + management to find out if we make it to Recommendation!
Blogposts forthcoming :) (twitter.com/_/status/938060709610614790)
@fakebaldur RT @cwebber@octodon.social
ActivityPub made it to Proposed Recommendation! Woooo! https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
Now we just need to wait on member vote + management to find out if we make it to Recommendation!
I should make some blogposts! But first I'm gonna… (twitter.com/_/status/938062946982232065)
@valerauko oh look at that https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/ (twitter.com/_/status/938077575796027392)
h congrats guys
Loqi Strugee made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-12-05]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=105294&oldid=105273
ben_thatmustbeme hey eprodrom
RRSAgent logging to https://www.w3.org/2017/12/05-social-irc
tantek aside I reviewed WebSub github diff https://github.com/w3c/websub/compare/63ee7b8eb8eadf347f8e4a9c822bd3a14353b346...master#diff-4bc8b9d21d1d1c119135d766f41dd388 and it LGTM
rhiaro tantek: in particular since I was working on PTD for rec track I was being a lot more diligent about issue tracking and trying to make things properly normative text. If you feel like this is something you must properly review please take a look at the issues and comment on the issues that you care about taht you want to see resolved before publication
sandro PLEASE LOOK OVER: https://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/websub/diff-20171003-20171129.html