Re: Post Type Discovery

On 10/07/2015 03:42 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> 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.
Less that mailing list, I see github issues as very useful channel which
offers features like nicely formated code snippets, inline images and
other perks which come with flavored markdown. I also aligns with Modern
Tooling effort

https://w3c.github.io/modern-tooling/#de-facto-github

> 
> 
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 14:38:48 UTC