- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:12:36 +0200
- To: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJC1hWb8XxA6Gy40Tg5_kbPe6qVU2=QhG0b+nUEptUM4A@mail.gmail.com>
there has been some talk about standardizing webmention as part of the work of this WG a few comments 1. I think webmention would really benefit from having a normative stable document -- when doing a search on the web there are many places you can be lead to, and it's really hard for a developer to know they are in the right place (eg webmention.org, webmention.net, indieweb wiki) 2. writing up webmention as a w3c note should not be a hard job ... it's a pattern that was being used 10 - 20 years ago ... for those not familiar, my understanding is it's a simple 2 parameter query string (ie source and target) 3. I am very impressed with what has been done with such a simple tech but I dont think it scales for a number of reasons which I'll point out: 4. webmention is a call by reference type function, whereas most functions allow both call by reference and call by value. So when say activity pump sends a serialized activity stream, webmention would fail. 5. webmention objects dont return URIs, this violates web axioms, where everything of note should have a URI 6. webmention is not extensible over and beyond the source and target parameters, which is problematic for any extra kind of data 7. webmention is not namespaces, preventing both open ended scalability, but also it's hard to translate source and target into URIs ... would should they be? urn:source and urn:target ... any suggestion here is problematic. 8 webmention does not accept the mime types being standardized in this group for a JSON based serialization Other than that I think it's an incredibly useful technology. That can solve some but not all of the user stories and patterns this group is working on. I dont think it can be a basis for a REC track social web API (I could be wrong there!) but im very excited about what is being done with it, at least as proof of concept, and would love to see something more official from the group on it, if that is considered appropriate -- mainly I think there would be a easily findable stable reference to the spec.
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2015 11:13:12 UTC