- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:16:13 -0800
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, public-socialweb@w3.org
- CC: Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
hello james.
On 2015-02-11 11:04 , James M Snell wrote:
> The bit of hierarchy that is there in the vocabulary does not
> necessarily mean that all implementations must abide by it or even pay
> attention to it. It's there for implementations who want it.
so one implementation that i ask for "respond" activities will give me
only "respond", and another one will give me "respond" and "like"? and a
third one might also give me "floop"? i think that would be rather
strange and brittle, at least based on the scenarios we're using. and
maybe it would be worth documenting, if we stick with this processing model.
if it is indeed like this, then i am wondering why the hierarchy is in
the spec in the first place. i think i'd prefer predictable behavior,
one way or the other. that's definitely what people are asking me when i
explain AS to them and they wonder what exactly they can expect from an
AS ecosystem.
cheers,
dret.
--
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 |
| UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
| http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 19:16:38 UTC