RE: Reviewing Social Web Specs

Hello Sandro,

Thank you for this note. I’ll be updating our review radar [1] shortly with this information.

Do you have specific schedules or deadlines for any of these documents that we should be mindful of? I suspect that we will want to review all of these. I must point out that reviewing a document that is already in CR or with very short time before CR is not ideal. Please consider requesting reviews closer to FPWD in the future.

Best regards (for I18N),

Addison

Addison Phillips
Principal SDE, I18N Architect (Amazon)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.



From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 12:46 PM
To: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>; Richard Ishida, Staff Contact, i18n WG <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org
Subject: Reviewing Social Web Specs

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