Re: standardizing webmention

On 16 July 2015 at 21:20, Ben Werdmüller <ben@withknown.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Excellent!


>
> 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.
>

I think that has yet to be defined by there is gathering consensus around
activity streams 2.0


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

Great news.  However what's 'trivial' for one developer may be a challenge
for others, at least in the time frame of this WG.


>
>
> 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
>