Re: On requesting changes (was Re: internationalization issues)

On 10/23/2015 12:25 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to agree with James on the fact that comments a la "obviously
> too complex" aren't helpful at all. At this point in the development
> of the spec, requests for changes should be specific and come with 1)
> a rationale and 2) proposed alternate text in email or Pull Requests.
>
> As a staff contact, Harry, I'd expect you to be a role model in this
> regard.

However (as was written in the charter), on a larger note we need to
clarify the relationship to JSON-LD. Again, it's JSON-LD compatible but
we should not feel strictly bound by JSON-LD or RDF conventions if we
are worried that it will hurt adoption.

I believe a few implementers are going to ask for a large amount of
simplifying changes shortly. In particular, the implementers I've worked
with (Thoughtworks) have been waiting about a month to have their IE
status approved, so I'd prefer if they did the change requests directly
rather than have myself proxy.g

        cheers,
               harry



>
> Cheers.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies
> - IBM Software Group
>
>
>
>
> From:        Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
> To:        James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>,
> "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
> Date:        10/22/2015 08:52 AM
> Subject:        Re: internationalization issues
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/22/2015 11:45 AM, James M Snell wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for feedback on what parts of the AS2.0 spec are
> > "obviously too complex". So far the feedback has been far too vague to
> > be useful.
>
> I'll try to get to this next week, but my high-level feedback is likely
> for AS2.0 to be successful everything outside the basic actor-verb model
> and the kinds of metadata in Winer's RSS specs/Atom should be removed
> and put back in Activity Vocabulary.
>
> I also am still strongly against the Activity Vocabulary being a
> normative Recommendation, as it will lead to endless bikeshedding and
> its a Sisyphean task to describe all social interactions using a single
> vocabulary, and the vocabulary should align where possible with
> IETF/microformats specs down to the 'string' level.
>
> And yes, evidence points to AS1.0 being a failure (as well as original
> binding to Atom's XML format). While Atom/RSS had widespread adoption
> amongst end developers, AS1.0, despite being deployed by large sites and
> even Microsoft for a period of time, failed to gain much developer
> mind-share. The situation is even trickier with AS2.0 because *unlike*
> AS1.0, there's no large implementers (outside *maybe* IBM) really
> interested, just the open-source community.
>
>         cheers,
>            harry
> >
> > Given the details in the document Sandro forwarded, I'm retracting my
> > proposal for removing the language map mechanism.
> >
> > - James
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
> >> Note I forwarded the removal of language tags to Richard Ishida
> from the
> >> Internationalization Activity.
> >>
> >> The AS2.0 spec is obviously too complex. That being said, I'm not sure
> >> if language tags though are the right thing to delete, I'm assuming our
> >> Internationalization expert, Richard Ishida, will be back with us
> shortly.
> >>
> >> On 10/22/2015 08:50 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> >>> There's finally a first draft of W3C expertise on how to design
> >>> technologies which are suitably international
> >>>
> >>> http://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs-dynamic
> >>>
> >>> It would be splendid for someone to go through this thinking of AS2.
> >>>
> >>>     -- Sandro
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
>