Re: jf2 vs. AS 2.0

Melvin Carvalho writes:

> On 4 November 2015 at 01:51, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks for looking over this, but please don't make assumptions about
>> what
>> > the purpose of jf2 is. I tried adding it to the agenda for today's call,
>> but
>> > it was continually pushed down in the list to make room for all the AS2
>> > issues and we didn't get to talk about it at all.
>> >
>>
>> Fair enough. I'm responding to what I've already been told about it's
>> purpose. Harry indicated previously that it was intended as an
>> alternative to AS 2.0 and, from what I understand, there's been some
>> discussion/disagreement among the chairs about considering it as an
>> alternative to AS2 that ought to be considered a parallel work item of
>> the working group. My analysis is based on that information. If you
>> (as the author) have a different point of view on it, then fantastic,
>> and I certainly hope you take no offense to the analysis.
>>
>
> Thanks for going thru these points.
>
> I do see progress towards convergence here.  Im glad the two of you are
> discussing it here, we need not view all work as competitive.
>
> Similarly, I think James' efforts towards convergence between AS2 and JSON
> LD were a great gesture this week.  This kind of goodwill motivate
> participation, and as we're a small group compared to the social web
> incumbents, working together constructively is all the more important.  I
> see good progress!

I agree with this!

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 16:09:03 UTC