Re: Annotating (and discussing) the Required Readings

On 12/01/2015 06:00 AM, Aaron Parecki wrote:
> This is neat, but I still much prefer Github for discussing these 
> things. I agree it would be nice if Github didn't use the term 
> "issues", since that adds undesired meaning in some cases, but the 
> discussion format is good. The times I've seen discussions get wildly 
> off topic hasn't been due to the medium, and would likely happen on 
> any other medium such as this as well. The more productive threads 
> break out the discussion into a new issue when a new topic arises. 
> GitHub even shows the link between the two at the point it was 
> created, so it becomes easy to see where the discussion went.

What about all the little comments about wording and typos and unclear 
sections and small questions?   When I spend 30 minutes reading a spec, 
I have probably 20 of those.   I can't do a PR because in most questions 
I'm not actually sure what it's supposed to say.    The way I've always 
seen those dealt with in the past is with people submitting 'reviews'.   
But we don't seem to be doing that much in this WG.   The annotations 
approach seems like it might be very nice for that.

Example 'review': 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Aug/0070.html

For about thousands of other examples, see 
https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=review

What I do is print it out, write on it in pen, then think about it some 
more and turn it into an email.  Not sure how others do it.

      -- Sandro

> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:46 AM Benjamin Goering <bengoering@gmail.com 
> <mailto:bengoering@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     The Required Readings are published on the web, but some also have
>     GitHub repositories where the discussion has been mostly
>     happening. But GitHub has it's limitations (see "Clarifying GitHub
>     Workflow" agenda item), including the fact that it only supports
>     'issues' (even for related conversations or questions not meant to
>     critique the spec), and the comments on those issues aren't
>     threaded and so can quickly get off-topic, not to mention that
>     those issues are already created far away and out of context of
>     the actual specification. Oy, surely there is a better way?
>
>     I'm not the first person to feel this pain.
>     https://www.w3.org/community/spec-annotation/. The Web Annotation
>     Protocol WG is (sort of) selfdogfooding web annotation on their
>     own spec <http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/>, and
>     webplatform.org is hosting a web annotation service
>     <https://notes.webplatform.org/> provided by hypothes.is
>     <http://hypothes.is>.
>
>     I used the public hypothes.is <http://hypothes.is> service to
>     annotate the required readings, and I would enjoy having
>     contextual, threaded, nonlockable conversations on there instead
>     of GitHub Issues, and so I invite others to do the same.
>
>     I used the Chrome plugin, but they also have a bookmarklet and
>     proxy. Here are proxy links to annotatable versions of the
>     required readings.
>
>       * AS2 Core
>         <https://via.hypothes.is/http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/>
>       * AS2 Vocabulary
>         <https://via.hypothes.is/http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/>
>       * Amy's Social API document
>         <https://via.hypothes.is/https://w3c-social.github.io/SocialAPI/socialapi>
>       * Webmention <https://via.hypothes.is/http://webmention.net/>
>       * Micropub Proposal <https://via.hypothes.is/http://micropub.net/>
>       * ActivityPump Proposal
>         <https://via.hypothes.is/https://w3c-social.github.io/activitypump/>
>
>     And, for better or worse,here is an index of my annotations across
>     those documents <https://hypothes.is/stream?q=user:bengo>. Thanks
>     you to the folks who drafted them.
>
>     Of course, actual transactional issues with the specs should
>     continue to go through wherever the respective editors and chairs
>     prefer (w3/track or GH?).
>
>     See some of you at f2f soon.
>     -- 
>     Benjamin Goering, Technologist
>     @bengo <https://twitter.com/bengo>-github.com/gobengo
>     <https://github.com/gobengo> -linkedin.com/in/benjamingoering
>     <https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjamingoering>
>