W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > April to June 2016

Re: Reviewing Social Web Specs

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:36:43 -0400
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, "Richard Ishida, Staff Contact, i18n WG" <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <576DA7EB.2050308@w3.org>
On 06/24/2016 05:00 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> Hello Sandro,
> Thank you for this note. I’ll be updating our review radar [1] shortly 
> with this information.

Thanks, Addison

> Do you have specific schedules or deadlines for any of these documents 
> that we should be mindful of?

Our only hard deadline is the group will be shutting down at the end of 
the year.   I have fantasies of PR at the end of the summer.  So, 
obviously, the sooner the better, if we're to have a chance to do 
anything about it.

> 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.

But they're not stable, then.    I guess in theory we could try to 
notice, for each of our many specs, when we're down to issues that 
somehow don't bear on i18n, and then ask for i18n review, then notice 
when we're down to issues that somehow don't bear on a11y and then ask 
for a11y review, and so on with each kind of horizontal review for each 
spec...      I've been through this a dozen times in as many years, and 
I've still no idea how to do it, other than wait until all the issues 
are closed.  Perhaps I'm a slow learner.

MEANWHILE, that reminds me, we did notice one i18n issue with AS2, which 
I wrote to Richard about on May 10.  In retrospect, I should have 
included a larger list of recipients.   I wrote:

> The Social Web WG expects to have 2-5 specs going to CR in the next 
> two months.
> One of them has an I18N issue we noticed.   The others, none yet.
> The issue we notice is in Activity Steams.  This is basically a 
> syndication format/vocabulary, for people to publish what they've been 
> doing online.   Liking things, checking in at locations, unfriending 
> people, etc.  It includes a standard vocabulary for common things, but 
> anticipates lots of extensions.
> It uses a constrained subset of JSON-LD as its syntax.   So that 
> limits how it can encode lang information.  And within the JSON-LD 
> limitations, we've chosen some more limitations.   Specifically, we've 
> allowed exactly one way to provide lang tags.    It looks like this:
> No language tag:
> { ...
>   "content":"A <i>simple</i> note"
> }
> With language tags:
> {...
>    "contentMap":{
>       "en":"A <i>simple</i> note",
>       "sp":"Una <i>simple</i> nota"
>    }
> }
> This should work, but it does not allow any kind of defaults. Any 
> property that doesn't use a lang map has no language information.  
> Unfortunately we're unable to find any reasonable way to allow defaults.
> See discussion at 
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-02-minutes#Issue_251

Hoping that helps,

      -- Sandro

> 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
Received on Friday, 24 June 2016 21:36:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:02:12 UTC