Re: standardizing webmention

Known already accepts webmention in the JSON syntax Amy specified. This
wasn't necessarily intentional, but it works as a side effect of what we do
further up the stack.

My question then becomes, beyond the webmention exchange itself, which
vocabularies would we need to support in order to be in line with existing
social syntax? I think the discussion over JSON at the exchange mechanism
level is a red herring, because supporting it is so trivial.

In fact, that's the single most important thing about it: supporting it is
trivial. There's very little overhead at all.


On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com> wrote:

>  I think the question of whether the JSON syntax is needed in everything
> is very much open.
>
> I'd rather not standardize on a federation protocol that isn't based on
> the Social Syntax we standardize.
>
> -Evan
>
>
> On 2015-07-15 05:40 AM, Ben wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure Amy was being facetious.  There is no real need for this
> to be JSON.  All it does is add extra parsing.  The JSON syntax of the
> charter is not needed in everything, unless you go to the absurd extreme of
> saying that TCP is not JSON based and therefore cannot be part of the
> socialAPI.  Webmention is just that, a lower level of just notifying that a
> reference exists.  Parsing that source is entirely open for discussion.
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 15 July 2015 at 12:49, Amy G <amy@rhiaro.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>  So... if a webmention endpoint accepted
>>>
>>>  {"source":"http://example.com/post","target":"http://elpmaxe.org/post"}
>>>
>>>  instead of source=
>>> http://example.com/post&target=http://elpmaxe.org/post
>>>
>>>  is that what you'd want to see?
>>>
>>
>>  Potentially, yes.  As long as it passes the test suite for the common
>> JSON syntax this group ends up agreeing on.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  I don't think I understand your PHP reference.
>>>
>>> On 15 July 2015 at 11:30, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 July 2015 at 12:20, Amy G <amy@rhiaro.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Webmention itself doesn't care about the data structure of the source.
>>>>> If you can retrieve JSON from the source URL (whether by parsing
>>>>> microformats, content negotiation, or following a link rel or whatever)
>>>>> then this works just fine according to the charter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I get what you are saying.  Replace "webmention" in the sentence
>>>> above with "PHP".  It would be an equally true sentence.
>>>>
>>>>  In general the point, was not about what webmention can reference or
>>>> process.  It was about what it accepts.  What I think would be nice is if
>>>> all the technologies we have on the REC track could support the common JSON
>>>> social syntax.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 July 2015 at 09:42, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 July 2015 at 08:19, Amy G <amy@rhiaro.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > For example sending a direct message via a JSON activity stream,
>>>>>>> is one of the user stories.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which user story mentions json or activity streams?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  The charter does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


-- 
*Ben Werdmuller*
CEO & co-founder, Known
withknown.com | werd.io
<http://goog_1933028737>
+1 (312) 488-9373

Known, Inc | 421 Bryant St | San Francisco, CA 94107