Re: standardizing webmention

On 16 July 2015 at 21:46, Ben Werdmüller <ben@withknown.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Melvin Carvalho <
> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>
Fantastic


>
>
> Cool. As a developer founder with a startup based on these technologies,
> my only pragmatic path is to stick with the version that is actively being
> used, because that's where the demand is. But once there's code up and
> running that Known can interact with, I'll happily support it.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Sure. I guess my point is, there's very little that's easier than "here's
> a post request with two variables". You can even imagine iterating on the
> spec (as a second phase) to add signing so there's a concept of identity or
> access control. What happens after that is, of course, up for grabs.
>

Makes sense.

PS: As far as I am aware, The W3C credentials/payments groups are working
on a spec to exactly allow the signing of such content to show it came from
a user.  And another group is working on access control too.  So I can well
imagine an iterative path for systems that start wanting more features.


>
>
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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
>