Re: Post Type Discovery

On 10/06/2015 08:12 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> I objected today to accepting PTD as a working draft because I have some
> open questions about it, and not because I think there's an intrinsic
> problem with the doc. I'm not sure if they're appropriate for the
> document feedback section, since they're less about the format itself
> and more about the relationship with this group.
> 
>  * *Does this fit with our charter*? In other words, can we argue that
>    taking on this work as part of the WG is related to the work that
>    we're supposed to be doing?
>  * *Do we have the bandwidth for it*? As a working group, do we have
>    the time and attention to work on this document and move it forward?
>  * *How does it relate to our other deliverables*? Is it a replacement
>    for the JSON-based social data syntax, or kind of a preprocessing
>    best practice?
>  * *Who will work on the document? *Who will be shepherding this format?
>  * *What are our success criteria*? Are we intending to publish this as
>    a Note or Recommendation? Or is it there to inform implementers of
>    the other specs? Or are there other goals for continued work with it?
> 
> I really appreciate the effort that's gone into this document, and I
> think it's well-written and has a lot of value. I just want to make sure
> that we know the work and responsibility involved, if any, before we
> adopt it into the group.

I added issue on IWC wiki
* https://indiewebcamp.com/post-type-discovery#Issues

I see current claim of compatibility with AS2.0 very misleading and
purely based on included in AS2.0 drafts examples of Microformats HTML
serializations, about which James wrote a clear NOTE in both specs:
"The Microdata, RDFa and Microformats examples included in this document
are purely informative and may not currently reflect actual
implementation experience or accepted best practices for each format.
These alternate serializations may be removed from future iterations of
this document and moved to a separate informative WG Note."

As of today Post-Type-Discovery only applies to modeling used by
participants of IndieWebCamp and assumes use of Microformats Vocabulary.

I don't say that I support modeling used by IWC based on Microformas
Vocabulary or that I support modeling used by James based on
ActivityStreams 2.0 Vocabulary. I just think that pretending that those
two mentioned use compatible models, and that proposed 'type discovery'
supports both, only brings more confusion to current state of things.

If supporters of this draft really want it to support both Microformat
and ActivityStreams 2.0 based modeling, I see appropriate to show it
with examples which use *both* recommended AS2.0 modeling and
recommended Microformats modeling. As I see it this will require
modifying at least one or both models.
https://indiewebcamp.com/post-type-discovery#Examples

Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 21:34:25 UTC