Social Web Working Group Teleconference

02 May 2017

Attendees

Present: cwebber, eprodrom, KevinMarks, sandro, ajordan, tantek, ben_thatmustbeme
Regrets Chair: eprodrom
Scribe: Ben Roberts

tantek: since aaronpk isn't here, there are a few micropub issues that came up, please take a look at them to help process them
... oh there is a new implementation for micropub as well
... micro.blog has taken micropub as their client connection API
... so their client will work for any micropub servers, and existing micropub clients will work for them
... also micro.blog is not a w3c member, just a kickstarter project

ben_thatmustbeme: i opened issues on various issue trackers, to request support for it too

current CR updates

<sandro> Here's the W3C Member Confidential link to one negative comment on MicroPub: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2017Apr/0338.html

<sandro> (Oh, wait, that's incomplete.)

eprodrom_: is there anything we can talk about on websub without aaronpk or julien here?

tantek: i was hoping to get a websub test suite update today

eprodrom_: i think aaronpk said a 2 week schedule for it made sense

tantek: and i see 3 open issues

eprodrom_: on to AP

<tantek> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/

cwebber: we have seen some implementation work from mastodon and ??
... in terms of a test suite, i have some working code, and i have discussed with eprodrom_ and its a bit too prompty, and its going to be some work to simplify it

<cwebber> https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-11-april-to-2-may

cwebber: things are not there yet, but there is progress
... we had a CR scheduled for today, put the link to changes
... in irc
... mainly a new CR because there have been a lot of changes

<cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/219

<Loqi> [cwebber] #219 Make adding to outbox collection on client to server section a MUST?

cwebber: but before issuing another CR, we may want to talk about a few of these issues
... for 219 its a question of it should be a MUST to post ...
... i'm not completely convinced if those are reason enough

eprodrom_: couple of tricky bits here, one is access control, if i publish something that is only visible to certain people, what does it mean to publish it to that outbox collection
... do they have different views of the

cwebber: we already have working about filtering the outbox based on ACLs

eprodrom_: the only other issue i could see is with third party confirmation
... like a captca, or a confirmation you were tagged
... a SHOULD would likely be fine

sandro: what happens if someone violates the should?
... does it break implementations?

cwebber: it wouldn't break federation but it just wouldn't federate

sandro: isn't that broken?

eprodrom_: its like if something gets posted to the server but doesn't get posted publicly

tantek: do we know of a specific use-case for that?

sandro: the reason for should would allow for flexibility for other things?

cwebber: another example would be for transient messages

eprodrom_: a common case is uploading files for processing, like video files get transcoded on the server, they may not appear immediately

<sandro> I like SHOULD, given this need for flexibility

eprodrom_: we can't think of it as a bad thing if it did happen

tantek: whenever you change a should to a must makes it more fragile
... its best to start with MUST and drop to a SHOULD only if it breaks for someone
... only go SHOULD if there is a specific use-case

cwebber: there is one case where it would break, which is transient activiites, which we have mentioned in other places in the spec
... rather we permit it, like for game activities that stick around
... but we don't have really clear examples of it happening

sandro: you can say its a MUST except for transient activities or other things that might come along

eprodrom_: it doesn't actually have a time constraint, if its delayed some amount of time, thats fine

<cwebber> > The server MUST then add this new Activity to the outbox collection, unless there is a specific reason that this object will never appear in the outbox, such as the object being transient or be used for side effects only.

eprodrom_: even transient activiites can appear and then disappear, there is not requirement that they stay there

tantek: i like that interpretation

eprodrom_: i think thats a common understanding of what a feed is, things don't get added right away, things change, things get removed without warning

<eprodrom_> PROPOSED: close issue https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/219 with proposed text including "MUST"

<Loqi> [cwebber] #219 Make adding to outbox collection on client to server section a MUST?

<eprodrom_> +1

<eprodrom_> ben_thatmustbeme: thanks

ajordan: is the proposed text we are dissing the one cwebber just posted to IRC?

<tantek> +1

cwebber: no, thats a more expanded version

ajordan: so we are discussing the one on github?

cwebber: yes

ajordan: can we add a note to that effect?

<ajordan> +1

ajordan: as an implementor i wouldn't see that as obvious

<eprodrom_> PROPOSED: close issue https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/219 with proposed text including "MUST" with explanatory note for exceptions

<Loqi> [cwebber] #219 Make adding to outbox collection on client to server section a MUST?

+1 not sure this needs a proposal any more, just resolve and adding note is up to editor discression

<eprodrom_> +1

<ajordan> +1

eprodrom: i think the concern is a client that posts a note and then immediately reads the outbox and expects it to be there

<cwebber> +1

eprodrom: we should explain that there are several reasons why it might not be there

tantek: in the interest of interop, i'm in favor of fewer caveats

<sandro> +1

<tantek> +1

RESOLUTION: close issue https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/219 with proposed text including "MUST" with explanatory note for exceptions

<Loqi> [cwebber] #219 Make adding to outbox collection on client to server section a MUST?

<tantek> technically caveats not exceptions but ok

<tantek> (something appears briefly still apears, or something that appears later still appears, in the outbox)

sandro: we might want to talk about posibilities of extending the group

cwebber: i can wrap up AP quick i think

<cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/202

<Loqi> [mray] #202 SVG version tutorial Illustrations

cwebber: i wanted to make sure before we approve the CR, we are okay with these images added

<cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/196

<Loqi> [annando] #196 How to differentiate between posts and private (direct) messages?

cwebber: the other issue is this is too complex to discuss, this whole thing as flagging things as direct messages, if we do the CR now, this will come up again

<cwebber> https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-11-april-to-2-may

<tantek> and 219?

ben_thatmustbeme: if there are possibly normative changes, should we wait on CR?

<tantek> with the set of changes in https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-11-april-to-2-may I think we should do a CR today

cwebber: what do you think sandro? can we wait?

sandro: it can wait another week

tantek: its not clear that we will have a solution next week either

ben_thatmustbeme: i'm not saying we shouldn't do a CR, just asking that

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: new CR for ActivityPub with changes https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-11-april-to-2-may and changes to issue 219 and vector graphics

<cwebber> +1

<tantek> +1

<ajordan> +1

+1

<sandro> +1

<eprodrom> +1

RESOLUTION: new CR for ActivityPub with changes https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-11-april-to-2-may and changes to issue 219 and vector graphics

<tantek> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/97

<Loqi> [aaronpk] #97 Discussion for Host-Meta feature At Risk

tantek: websub, aaronpk looked for implementations that publish it and or depend on it, its sort of a last call for implementations of it

and his plan is to not implement a test for it

scribe: otherwise its assumed this at-risk feature is getting killed

extending the WG?

eprodrom: tantek, sandro, and I have been talking about if its possible for extending this group
... there has been some push for activity streams, there has been a lot of interest with mastodon, and lots of implementation work
... i'd like to discuss this next week

tantek: i agree the last month has shown tremendous implementation update in all of our specs
... from the mastodon phenomenon, to micro.blog, to LDN getting more impelmentations, i think we can make a case for that to recharter, we just have to figure out what that means

<eprodrom> Thanks all

eprodrom: thanks everyone for your time

<tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++ for scribing

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 68 karma in this channel (208 overall)

<ajordan> ben_thatmustbeme++

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 69 karma in this channel (209 overall)

<ajordan> thank you!

trackbot end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-04-25-minutes as minutes for April 25 meeting
close issue https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/219 with proposed text including "MUST" with explanatory note for exceptions
new CR for ActivityPub with changes https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-11-april-to-2-may and changes to issue 219 and vector graphics

Socialwg/2017-05-02-minutes

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

02 May 2017

Attendees

Contents

approval of minutes

next meeing?

SWICG telcons

PR status updates

our CRs

PR status updates

current CR updates

extending the WG?

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions