Re: Post Type Discovery

On 7 October 2015 at 12:47, elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
wrote:

> On second thought I will +1 accepting it as Editor's Draft if it does
> NOT commit us to publish it as Working Draft, we will need to reach
> consensus before doing it. IMO working on it together will provide
> chance for us to develop better understanding of similarities and
> differences in modeling currently recommended in AS2.0 (W3C Working
> Draft) and Microformats (Independent Drafts). So far I only saw one
> effort in that direction between James and Tantek:
> * https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams/Microformats_Mapping
> and multiple efforts by Amy:
> * http://rhiaro.co.uk/tag/socialwg
>
> What I see promissing here:
> https://indiewebcamp.com/post-type-discovery#Next_steps
> <blockquote>
> if accepted as an Editor's draft in the W3C Social Web Working Group:
>  * keep a copy on the W3C wiki, e.g.
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Post-type-discovery
>  * use W3C Social Web github for issues
>  * use #social on irc.w3.org for discussion - both of which, officially
> *instead of* email. Unofficial discussion are of course encouraged
> anywhere people want!
>

I would caution of using IRC *instead of* email, but rather, *in additions
to*.  The mailing list is a normative communications channel in a WG.  In
order to remain in good standing, participants are required to follow
relevant topics in the mailing list.


> end if
> </blockquote>
>
> On 10/06/2015 11:34 PM, elf Pavlik wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>