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

On 23 October 2015 at 19:19, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> As far as I'm concerned, no need needs to wait on getting IE status
> approved to provide feedback. That's what github issues are for...
> that's why we're doing this development in the open in the first
> place. You do not need IE status or need to be a member of this WG to
> open issues on github. I would encourage ANYONE who is looking to
> implement who has specific concerns to raise those concerns now.
>
>   https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues


+1 Arnaud
+1 James

IMHO AS2.0 is the outstanding piece of work in this group to date.  I dont
think it's overly complex, and this is certainly not something I would call
obvious.  There is a difference between expressive and complex.  Most of
the fields in AS are optional, so systems can avoid complexity simply by
not using the fields that are not applicable

May I note that on top of the github issues, the group has a public mailing
list that anyone can post to:

public-socialweb-comments@w3.org

Please allow stake holders and implementor to make their case, rather than,
proxying either private or public opinions.  You run too high a risk of
quoting out of context, which is counter productive.  Simply provide
encourage people to engage the group, or provide pointers, as Sandro has
been doing.


>
>
> - James
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>