W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > June 2016

Request: Reviewing Social Web Specs

From: Janina Sajka, Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:16:48 -0400
To: W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20160628171648.GA3917@opera.rednote.net>

I'm forwarding the following to get into our APA discussion archives.
We'll take this up on our call Wednesday and following.


Sandro Hawke writes:
> I'm writing on behalf of the Social Web WG.  Some of our specs are now
> stable, and if we would value a review from your group at your earliest
> convenience.  While our primary use cases are often framed in terms of
> social media and blogging, the technologies may be broadly applicable.
> So far we have three specs in or near CR:
>    * *Webmention* lets you tell a website you're linking to it.  This
>    supports ad hoc federation of sites
>    https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/
>    * *Activity Streams* (2.0) is a standard (and extensible) way to
>    share a stream of what people do online (eg, "liking", posting a
>    photo, etc)
>    https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
>    https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/
>    * *Micropub* provides a standard Web API to create and control posts
>    on your own website
>    https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub/
> Additionally:
>    * *Social Web Protocols*: provides an overview, including an
>    explanation for how the parts fit (and sometimes do not fit)
>    together.  This document does not currently have any normative content.
>    https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/
> There are other documents not yet ready for horizontal review. You'll see
> them linked from Social Web Protocols, and we'll send another email when
> they're in or near CR.
> Note that the group is producing multiple stacks which are not entirely
> compatible, reflecting the fragmentation in this space. Basically, we
> decided having multiple competing specs, while not an ideal situation, would
> still be a step forward.
> If you think your group will be doing a review, please reply-all and let us
> know your timeframe.  We'd very much appreciate the actual review comments
> being raised as issues on the repo for each particular spec (linked in the
> title section), and then a high-level email or summary issue stating when
> the review is complete.
> Please feel free to share this call-for-review with anyone likely to be
> interested.
> Thank you!
>    -- Sandro Hawke, Staff Contact, W3C Social Web Working Group


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2016 17:17:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:21 UTC