#social 2023-09-22
2023-09-22 UTC
treora and cayley5 joined the channel
# 
cayley5 hello
# cayley5 I came here from the activitypub website's recommendation, but I'm not sure if im welcomed
# cayley5 when I joined I got a msg "This server is generally restricted to use by members of the W3C community."
# cayley5 wdym
mro, tenma, timbl and treora joined the channel
# capjamesg Hello!
# capjamesg cayley5 You are most welcome!
# capjamesg If you are interested in social web discussions related to ActivityPub, you are part of the W3C community :D
# capjamesg I'm going to be running a few commands over the upcoming 10 minutes to prepare us for a meeting.
Zakim and RRSAgent joined the channel
# 
RRSAgent logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-irc
# capjamesg Zakim, this conference is SWICG Community Meeting September 22nd, 2023
# capjamesg Meeting: SWICG Community Meeting September 22nd, 2023
# capjamesg Chair: Jame
# capjamesg Chair: James
nightpool joined the channel
# nightpool my money for an irc client that has working mobile push notifications
pfefferle joined the channel
# capjamesg Meeting starts in 6 minutes: https://meet.jit.si/social-web-cg
bengo, dmitriz and tantek joined the channel
# bengo I see a '400 Bad Request' from jitsi. Anyone else?
# dmitriz seems fine for me
# dmitriz what address you using?
# bengo Cleared my cookies and it worked!
# dmitriz oh good
snarfed joined the channel
dmitriz_ joined the channel
# dmitriz_ present+
angelo and manton joined the channel
# bengo present+
# pfefferle present+
# bengo (I forget how to work the bot)
# dmitriz_ type 'scribe+
# bengo scribe+
# dmitriz_ then it's irc handle: <whatever>
# dmitriz_ continuing for the same person is '... '
# bengo (I like how in CCG the chairs just start asking experienced people 1 by 1 to scribe and make them say 'no im not willing to')
# dmitriz_ ahahah yeah we should get a scribe list
# angelo present+
# bengo james: <is reading from the FAQ posted earlier>
# snarfed Zakim, agenda?
# bengo james: is there anyone with feedback on whether a WG is a good idea
# trwnh present+
# capjamesg bengo I'm reading my private notes on Notion :D
# bengo nightpool: I have a question. You said CG is empowered to present errata for AP/etc standards
# dmitriz_ q+
# snarfed are we using Jitsi hands or Zakim for floor control?
# dmitriz_ either is fine
# dmitriz_ we can do just jitsi
# bengo nightpool: There is not a super clear path forward to getting the documents updated with errata. does anyone have thoughts on that? I personally dont think there is a huge need for a new WG. BUt getting that power we have clarified could be helpful
# snarfed sure
# capjamesg w3c process: https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/
# bengo tantek: It depends on nature of errata. W3C process from FAQ links to it
# bengo tantek: If errata is editorial, w3c team can confirm that, and they are able to update specs on w3.org.
# bengo tantek: If there are meaningful changes to features, that needs to be a WG and it could be existing, new, rechartered WG
# bengo tantek: That could be one use case for a WG would be to incorporate errata and update specs accordingly
# bengo evan: the process we have to update the doc without charting a WG. We can incorporate errata in an editor's draft and submit that to the staff of the w3c.
# bengo evan: They have offered to update the document for editorial suggestions
# bengo evan: spelling errors, mistaken syntax in examples, things like that
# bengo nightpool: Which we don't have an inconsiderable number of
# bengo evan: Last I checked 5-10 known errors
# bengo evan: That's an estimate. I can give full number if needed
# bengo dmitri: As evan mentioned, we have the ability to update documents w/ errata by handing a draft over to the w3c staff. What we don't have is the ability to make substantive changes or breaking changes.
risotto joined the channel
# capjamesg +1 re: documenting unclear parts
# bengo dmitri: It would be great to document some of the unclear parts of the as2/ap spec that reflect the years of experience since then
# bengo dmitri: Evan can explain more. That would be one reason to do a narrowly scoped WG
# 
tantek FYI: last week's Social CG meeting minutes as context for new folks: https://www.w3.org/2023/09/12-social-minutes.html
# bengo dmitri: Also to update based on implementation experience of ap/as2
# dmitriz_ s/dmitri:/dmitriz:/
# bengo evan: I'd like to reply. We do have some recorded issues with AP/AS2.
Christian joined the channel
# bengo evan: They are technically normative. For example, the followers collection. spec doesn't say those elements should be unique
# bengo evan: Assumption has been made that it should be unique. BUt there is a question. Having spec and guidance may be normative but may reflect actual use. could be helpful
# bengo james: I think goal of the WG is making the job of implementors as easy as possible based on the experience we have over the years
# dmitriz_ q-
# nightpool ack tantek
# bengo tantek: +1 to what evan said. I think it would be very useful to capture the substantive changes we've learned from impl experience and deployments. It would help readers.
# bengo evan: I +1 what evan said about ap/as2 updates
# bengo *sorry tantek)
sivy joined the channel
# bengo tantek: There are also changes for webmention et al
# bengo tantek: There are extensions that are interoperably implemented that could be rolled into the core spec
# bengo aaron: There have been minor updates to micropub spec itself
# sivy waves
# capjamesg https://www.w3.org/TR/indieauth/
# bengo aaron: IndieAuth was a note published by group, not a full on rec. But it has gone through many changes since published. there is another opportunity there
# bengo dmitri: I'd love to hear from other members of the community.
# bengo dmitri: We have new faces. This topic has spread to socialhub, fediverse, etc.
# bengo Lisa: I am professionally working on portability. Personally a fediverse user and enthusiast.
# bengo Lisa: I think it's great to look at errata, rel=me, indieauth. plenty and very useful
AaronNGray and plh joined the channel
# bengo Lisa: Then maybe after that we can work on portability. Let's do easy stuff first
# bengo Manton: Thanks everyone for work that got us to this point
# plh present+
# bengo Manton: Don't think we should be too narrow. I think I've implemented every recommendation and note
hasanhaja joined the channel
# bengo dmitri: I'd like to provide a counter proposal for specifically a narrow scope
# bengo dmitri: consider holding off on a WG right now. Just incorporate errata using CG process outlined.
# bengo dmitri: OR only charter a WG with narrow scope of errata + clarifications
# bengo aaron: My understanding from what I've heard of changes is that they would not fall under errata scope
# capjamesg bengo: strongly prefer not having a large social web working group, didn't lead to collaboration vs. competition over limited air time
# capjamesg bengo: provide implementation guidance -- the best way on a timeline and avoiding competitive dynamics is to do it in an AP working group charter
AaronNGray joined the channel
# capjamesg bengo: this pattern has worked for high stakes specs
# bengo thanks james
bumblefudge_ joined the channel
# nightpool capjamesg++ for scribing
# bengo tantek: As a minor correction. SocialWG was not a large group. We typically had under a dozen people that came to meetings regularly
# dmitriz_ ben means large in the specs / communities sense, not people sense
# bumblefudge_ also the vcwg does lots of it's work in ccg task forces
# bengo tantek: We did have small subsets of the group work on different things
# bengo tantek: And in the group we had cross-technology and bridging discussions. It worked quite well
# bumblefudge_ it also outsourced one big time suck to rdf canonicalization wg
# capjamesg Bob in chat: "I strongly support a "SocialWeb" Working Group. If that hasn't worked in the past, we should be trying to make it work in the future."
# bumblefudge_ portability task force could stay in cg? it probably won't neednormative changes, could just be extensions
# bengo tantek: WG will often create a task force to work on a specific technology so that if people want to work on only one or two specifications can work in a TF which is empowered to work in the WG. That way people can pick there own level of participation. It empowers folks to get work done where they want, esp those who want to work on both
# dmitriz_ +1 to portability TF to stay in CG
# bumblefudge_ we have an extension mechanism that seems to work well to allow staggering adoption across large userbase implementations
# dmitriz_ exactly the kind of things CGs are useful for
# bengo tantek: I would say that one output of the group was a high degree of semantic interop between AP and webmention. It has enabled bridgy (sees snarfed) which has enabled things like micro.blog which seamlessly suppose multiple protocols without forcing the user to decide
# bumblefudge_ rather than major version forced sunsetting
# bengo tantek: It's hard to emphasize how important that was to keep things working
# bengo tantek: I would like to see more collaboration on not competition
# bengo james: I'd like to see that too
# bengo dmitri: I'd like to +1 to what bengo said that it might make a lot of sense for IndieAuth to charter a WG specifically for that or other IndieWeb specs narrowly focused on the indieweb specs.
# bengo dmitri: There is a lot of benefit to separating the streams into narrow WG
# bengo dmitri: +1 to what ben said
# bengo manton: I was going to say this anyway but it also responds. One concrete example in favor of more broad is IndieAuth. For example, indieweb proposed an Oauth2 profile for ActivityPub. To me there is a lot of overlap
# bengo manton: I feel they should be discussed at the same time
# dmitriz_ auth should absolutely stay out of scope, of any wg...
# bengo manton: I feel benefits of everyone talking together
# bengo (bengo notes that more people can talk together in SWICG without a WG)
bumblefudge__ and BobWyman joined the channel
# bengo aaron: We should generalize the auth. There could be a generalized indieauth for indieauth, did auth. Maybe there could be a common API for all of them as a subgroup
# bengo (aaron gray)
# bengo aaronp: With my oauth hat on. I am editor of oauth 2.1 spec and in IETF groups on it. I know there is a lot of discussions about keeping auth out of group
# bengo aaronp: There are views about keeping auth out of specs
# capjamesg +1 re: inventing new things
# capjamesg *not inventing new things
# ckolderup present+
# bengo aaronp: oauth is great. You kind of need to profile it to work with indieauth and other social web things. You have to profile it if you're going to use it
# bengo aaronp: IndieAuth and evan's profile do have a lot of similarities already
# dmitriz_ that seems like a job for the IETF OAuth WG. (or the IETF GNAP wg)
# bengo aaronp: Those similarities are making their way into the IETF discussions as well
# bengo aaronp: Those discussions should be done in concert with the oauth discussion at IETF and any auth work here should cooperate with that gruop
# bengo aaronp: I disagree with aaron gray with making a broader scope for auth. This works as is with what mastodon is doing and its on the right track but we need to better formalize
# bengo bumblefudge_: there is a slight difference between a CG writing a profile as a note and a WG saying 'this is what AP is'
# bengo bumblefudge_: it brings auth into scope to do it in WG
# bengo bumblefudge_: I agree having auth profiles soon is a good idea. Everyone agrees hardening and having eyes on authn profiles. But that's different than doing auth in a social wg that could pick one way. It would be nice if implementations could choose which makes sense for them from CG profiles
# bengo bumblefudge_: Evan at TPAC proposed to choose things that get implemented by large implementations from the CG profiles. Are those then candidates for future WG
lisarue joined the channel
# bengo bumblefudge_: there was a period where those were happening in isolations without hope of being blessed as official options. If we open a path for extensions that take off and trickly through major implementations, that would be my preferred way of doing auth. There should not be WG fiat made by 10 members of a WG. I'd rather see extension processes be open and forified and taken seriously
# bengo bumblefudge__: everyone who started a note or FEP and didn't know this would happen should have at least a few months to update their note for consideration by SWICG
# bengo bumblefudge__: I want this to be community driven and adoption driven vs expertise driven
# tantek q+ to reply to bumblefudge__ and give example of Immersive Web CG/WG as noted in last week's meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/09/12-social-minutes.html
# bengo bumblefudge__: that's a reason I prefer to stay in the SWICG. I dont want this to just go into w3c WG and have techniques be done because W3C say so, vs process of community consideration and implementation
# bengo bumblefudge__: I worry about 'pre design'
# bengo james: IndieWeb is an example of a good community
# bengo james: where people implement and collaborate
# bumblefudge__ honestly I was at fediforum yesterday and lots of people had never heard of FEPs or NOTES :(
# bengo nightpool: with authn, one thing important to remember is that the original wg left authn out because it wasn't clear what would lead to adoption or be practical
# capjamesg Evan in chat: "I have to drop. I support a WG with scope of errata plus clarification . I oppose any editor's draft with normative changes. "
# bumblefudge__ we have some outreach to do to bring people (back) in
# capjamesg [tantek] in chat: "Evan, clarifications can be normative though, presumably curious how you are distinguishing those "
# bumblefudge__ elk.zone might get widely deployed?
# bengo nightpool: to some extent that has happen. there are two major s2s auth implementations. there are less c2s interop implementations of auth
# bengo nightpool: there are clear extensions in teh spec we have for community extensions for authn. I just want to point out we have extension points in the spec open for CG notes
# bengo nightpool: we dont need to make a spec change for auth. We just need CG notes for community guidance
# bumblefudge__ +1 to guidance and profiles and documentation of all kinds !
# bengo nightpool: I also want to note wrt FEP protocols. I agree with fact that we need to look at what's deployed and feasible. Another dynamic at play is there is low incentive to implement an FEP when there's no clear guidance on whether that will be the most interoperable solution
# bumblefudge__ well if no second implementation adopts it, sure
# bengo nightpool: in some ways a FEP is punting interop. i.e. standardize with what one project has done vs coming to consensus on what others could/should do
# bengo nightpool: Observation of process in the past is that it is lacking in that
# dmitriz_ an FEP being opened is just a start of the conversation, though
# bumblefudge__ the point of a FEP is that no input from other implementations is a guarantee it'll stay single implementation...
# bengo nightpool: Whats holding up and hurting FEP process right now is its single implementor discussion/profile. So then its 'which 10 FEPs do you support and how do they conflict with each other' so then there is no guidance for implementors because it didn't seek consensus
# bumblefudge__ that's a fair critique honestly it takes a lot of nudging to improve the process
# bengo nightpool: from pure technical perspective I dont think FEPs are providing clarity as much as documenting what exists
# bengo capjamesg: I'm just starting to impl AP so I am in that bucket now
# bumblefudge__ we need to PR the contributing.md with that guidance Maybe
# bengo dmitriz_: I think authentication is a really good time to highlight the role of a Community Group, which evan and tantek mention is to produce reports and hand them off to Working Groups. There are already authn Working Groups, including IETF oauth and OpenID and OpenID Foundation
# bengo dmitriz_: It would be possible for SWICG to produce authn notes and hand those to existing qualified groups. There is no need for a WG for auth
# bumblefudge__ but huge +1 to Aaron helping us harden both profiles!!!
# bengo dmitriz_: From what I've seen, FEPs are just a way of starting a discussion about what worked for someone, discuss, make PRs for a FEP
# manton Just wanted to clarify for people reading the transcript later, that above (:24) I meant to compare Evan's FEP (also linked above) with the IndieAuth note, and potential overlap that could be discussed if the scope isn't too narrow to only one spec.
# bengo dmitriz_: It is very much a living/start of implementor conversation
# bengo tantek: +1 nightpools concerns about single implementor extensions
# bengo tantek: I want to preserve the broad community aprticipation around FEPs and other communities
# bumblefudge__ I meant aaronpk sorry
# bengo tantek: one thing we discussed at TPAC was how w3c has evolved since SocialWG
# bengo tantek: one pattern that has emerged is one CG that incubates, looks at relevant things, etc. And a WG that looks at (by the judgement of the in-group), lifts changes into the WG
pz joined the channel
# bengo tantek: Some participant brought up the immersive web wg where they have both a CG and WG and are able to do the best of all worlds
# bengo tantek: They are able to keep creative experimentation in CG, but once there are multiple implementors interested, they can lift to WG
# bengo tantek: then people dont have to wonder what to implement, they can just look at the core spec authored by the WG
# bengo kevin: WG specs are documentation not legislation
# bengo kevin: the goal is to document what has been done not to specify how new people should implement
# bengo kevin: people who have done the work bridging lots of things
# capjamesg +1 -- implementers ultimately decide whether to implement part of a spec.
# bengo kevin: A big chunk of what happened last time but wasn't always visible was looking at 17 different APIs and looking at how they abstractly did things
# snarfed eg https://fed.brid.gy/docs#compare
# bengo kevin: that was a big chunk in activitystreams was abstracting amongst common patterns at big sites
# capjamesg (I think) the doc authored by Amy to which Kevin is referring: https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/
# bengo kevin: Sometimes it is boring and involves bickering
# bengo kevin: but at the end there is good content and ways of accomplishing those use cases
# bengo kevin: We can do convergence at the spec level
# bengo kevin: It's like classic xkcd about 14 probelms and then 15. there were 7 and then 3
# bengo kevin: People can say there was fighting at the end. But I'd say we did as good as we could by the end
# bengo kevin: e.g. something the group got right was a way for people who really like RDF and people like really like JSON to each have their way
# bengo aaronpk: I think we might be talking about different things on authentication
# bengo aaronpk: I'm not saying the WG should be inventing new mechanisms
# bengo aaronpk: There is not a scenario where you can just use oauth or just use openid
# bengo aaronpk: you have to make more decisions and those concerns sometimes overlap with wider communities
# bengo aaronpk: in those cases those discussions should be bridged
# bengo aaronpk: but there will also be some cases where narrow scoping things are only relevant to activitystreams/activitypub/micropub
# bengo aaronpk: sometimes those other groups dont care
# bengo aaronpk: I've done this before. I worked with FTX (FDX?) on banking
# bengo aaronpk: but there are some things they need and specific conerns they need about regulated banking that dont apply anywhere else. and in some cases they have developed their own profiles for their use cases
# lisarue I'm sure we can get good review from oauth WG contributors
# dmitriz_ just to clarify - I wasn't suggesting we'd invent new things from scratch. just the opposite - the CG can come up with the Authn profile
# bengo aaronpk: it's not that we are inventing new things from scratch. but we should document how to use them in our protocols
# dmitriz_ and check it against / liaise with the IETF authn WGs
# bengo snarfed: oauth profile is 1 profile. one example is authn in activitypub itself. it's imfamously unspecified
# bengo snarfed: community has settled on HTTP Signatures (cabbage not httpbis) for s2s
# dmitriz_ (finally)
# dmitriz_ HTTP Sig is another great example - there's already an IETF WG working on it! :)
# capjamesg As a new implementer, I have been confused by HTTP Signatures.
# capjamesg We shouldn't invent it, but I think I'm asking for more docs :)
# dmitriz_ 100%, it's super confusing. and yeah, definitely docs are needed
# bengo nightpool: on legislating vs documenting. I want to be clear that it is always going to be a balance because there will always be implementors that will await clear guidance. The goal of the group should always be to document and work with what is out there already, and at the end there also needs to be editorial guidance
# dmitriz_ which the CG can provide; WGs have no monopoly on better docs :)
# bengo nightpool: you have to do the work about coming from 15 standards to one
melvster_ joined the channel
# bumblefudge__ to be fair Evan did offer to mature the FEP process a week ago
# bengo nightpool: To me the FEP process is too far on the documentation side because there's no room for documenting approaches and editorial guidance
# snarfed dmitriz: right! my point isn't that we'd work on HTTP Sigs independently, only that we'd work on saying _in AP_ that it uses HTTP Sigs, details, etc
# bumblefudge__ huge +1 to Evans proposal
# bengo capjamesg: one point brought up on Mailing List was inclusion.
# 
aaronpk FYI http signatures are well on the way to RFC status at IETF now, just going through last reviews https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures/
# bengo capjamesg: to the extent we can all make people aware of the channels where people are talking about this stuff, that is all the better
# nightpool s/documenting approaches/simplifying approaches/
# bumblefudge__ yay!
# bengo capjamesg: when I've been implementing it hasn't been clear to me where FEPs apply vs the spec. Where should I be focusing my time? what's normative? as an aspiring implementor it's hard for me. Invite your friends to the gruop
# dmitriz_ ooh, +1 to that, Tantek (CG to help w FEP discussion)
# bengo capjamesg: I'm hoping we can create a forum where all can discuss things. Good topic calls like the CSAM topic call earlier this year
# bengo capjamesg: also meeting with other communities like indieweb. i think we should all be working together
# bengo tantek: good points nightpool I am glad you're here. I have also observed what you expressed. There is this braod spectrum between super bold implementors who write one FEP and that's there thing vs implementors who jump forward on things.
# bengo tantek: and yes there will be implementors who stand on the sidelines and wait for things in core
# bengo tantek: i have seen that over 20-30 years of standards work
bumblefudge_ joined the channel
# bengo tantek: Let's consider. Can we encourage folks for people to use the SWICG to get people to advocate for FEPs in a multi-stakeholder interop
# bengo tantek: I wonder what would be a good FEP/socialcg interaction or am I off base there
# bengo tantek: there are a lot of discussions in a broader sense happening at w3c beyond who is in this room. There are 40 odd groups and new ones proposed all the time
# bengo tantek: one use case is personal data stores
# bengo tantek: Some may be aware of solid
# bengo tantek: i was under the impression it was about social but now it seems like it has shifted to personal data stores
# bumblefudge_ yeah the FEPs range from "here's what i did" to very collaborative from the first issue. we should clarify only the latter will ever make it to main :)
# bengo tantek: i was explaining how you can use activitypub for that with other vocabularies
# bengo tantek: e.g. you could use it to edit any URL potentially
# bengo tantek: while we are interested in social use cases, these technologies may also address other use cases. I'm looking for a path to harmonizing these efforts
# bumblefudge_ evans proposal was great can we all review it and 3xpand it and ratify it?
# bengo tantek: I dont want to pick a winner but i want to harmonize semantics that might allow for interop e.g. verb semantics property semantics etc
# bengo tantek: this happens at w3c. groups are chartered to solve use cases
# bengo tantek: I encourage that. Keeping it broad. calling it social wg or something else. not specific to a technology
# bengo dmitriz_: +1 tantek on how CG can help with FEP process
# bengo dmitriz_: and helping get some to consensus
# bengo dmitriz_: I want to add that HTTP signatures is an excellent example of rthe power of CGs. There is already an existing WG at IETF bringing HTTP Signatures to a standard
# bumblefudge_ normative versus nonnormative distinction
# bengo dmitriz_: It doesn't need to be in scope for a Social Web WG. But the CG can make better example of where HTTP Sigs where before, where now, how to use them for max interop with social software. No WG is needed for that item
# bengo aaronpk: the way HTTP Signatures work is that its a framework. It defines how to pick parts of the message to sign. I'm a fan of the approach and its good
# snarfed aaronpk++
# bengo aaronpk: You have to decide which things to sign. And that needs to be written down as a profile and decided upon and agreed to by community
# 
Zakim tantek, you wanted to reply to bumblefudge__ and give example of Immersive Web CG/WG as noted in last week's meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/09/12-social-minutes.html and to ask
# bengo aaronpk: So to use it in activitypub we need a spec on how to sign the messages. Can't only delegate out to IETF. CG does need to do some publishing too
# bengo tantek: I want to propose some next steps
# nightpool we also need backwards-compatibility guidance.... upgrading the network from draft-cavage is a very tricky problem without a straightforward solution.
# trwnh +1
# dmitriz_ +1 nightpool, yeah. upgrade guidance
# bengo tantek: one step forward might be starting a wiki page in SocialCG wiki. Listing specific items for consideration
# bengo tantek: WG usually has to talk about its scope, deliverables, liason
# trwnh i've seen it said that http sigs alone are a reason for activitypub to fail
# bengo tantek: I suggest starting a wiki page that is not definitive
# bengo tantek: get it down in one place and guage support. one proposal
# bengo capjamesg: people interested in contributing to a WG should put their names forward
# BobWyman I suggest that the Working Group should be "broad but shallow." It should be a SocialWeb WG, not just ActivityPub, but it should be limited to eratta and clarifications, not addressing new issues (i.e. not deep).
# bengo capjamesg: rather than focusing on specific scope, we talked of so many things, i'd like to know whos interested in being in a WG
# bengo tantek: anyone should be able to access wiki
# bengo tantek: there shouldn't be a problem of access but if there is we'll fix it
# bengo capjamesg: No time made for TF discussion on list
# bengo capjamesg: I'll make sure minutes are posted in right place
# bengo capjamesg: If you have messages for chairs, message us
# bengo tantek: Thanks for those who woke up early.
# bengo nightpool: Thanks james for running meeting
# capjamesg Thank you bengo for taking notes throughout!
# ckolderup thanks james and thanks ben! thanks everyone!
# capjamesg bengo++ that was a _big_ help!
snarfed left the channel
# nightpool bengo++
# bengo scribe-
# capjamesg And thanks to everyone who attended! The notes will be distributed via the mailing list, GitHub, and W3C website.
# bengo (any advice scribe bot experts? Do I need to type a thing.)
Zakim left the channel
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html Zakim
# capjamesg Thank you tantek.
# bengo Is this accurate still? https://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html
# bengo Thanks.
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html tantek
# tantek bengo, see bottom of https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html :)
timbl joined the channel
pfefferle joined the channel
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html tantek
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html tantek
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html tantek
timbl joined the channel
timbl joined the channel
pfefferle joined the channel
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html tantek
# tantek s/i was explaining how you can use activitypub for that with other vocabularies/I met with a few Solid folks last week at TPAC and noted how existing technologies work for the personal data store use-case also, like you can use ActivityPub with other vocabularies, you can use MicroPub with other vocabularies
pfefferle joined the channel
# tantek s|Is this accurate still? https://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html||
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html tantek
pfefferle and AaronNGray joined the channel
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html tantek
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html tantek
# tantek s/bumblefudge__: /bumblefudge_: /g
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html tantek
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html tantek
AaronNGray joined the channel
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html tantek
AaronNGray, sivy and treora joined the channel