Re: objections to webmention

Replying because you make another accusation about violating process.   

An aside to the audience: Ann is encouraging me to put this stuff into a FAQ.    I'm imagining a "Suggestions For How To Participate at W3C."   If anyone's actually been reading this whole thread, or at least following along with parts of it, and thinks that'd be useful to them, please email me a few bullet points of the bits you think are most important, or feel free to make a document turning this thread into a FAQ.

On June 12, 2016 8:26:34 AM PDT, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11 June 2016 at 17:23, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Replying only because you raise some process points.   I continue to
>> strongly encourage you, if you want to be helpful toward the group's
>> mission, to either work on parts of the stack where you agree with
>the
>> architecture (eg activity pub or solid), or, if you want to help with
>> webmention, to tell true personal stories of difficulties you had
>using it.
>>
>> On June 11, 2016 1:29:59 AM PDT, Melvin Carvalho
><melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On 8 June 2016 at 16:50, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On June 8, 2016 4:53:53 AM PDT, Melvin Carvalho
>> ><melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On 8 June 2016 at 13:12, Ben <ben@thatmustbe.me> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > My recommendation at this point, is for this work to be a
>Note,
>> >and
>> >> >> leave the door open for further standardization.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Isn't that effectively saying you want it resolved outside of
>the
>> >> >working
>> >> >> group?
>> >> >>
>> >> >No no!
>> >> >
>> >> >I think it's good work, in general.  Im happy that it was done.
>> >Ideal
>> >> >way
>> >> >is to resolve issues here.  It's slightly awkward with tantek
>having
>> >> >boycotted the mailing list, but I dont give up hope!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The preferred place to discuss issues on a specific spec is
>github.
>> > I
>> >> opened an issue for you for this, to help encourage that, but then
>> >> eventually closed it because you weren't using it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The github process is rather hit and miss.
>>
>> W3C process holds groups accountable for how they handle issues, but
>lets
>> it them select among several fora for doing so.  This group has
>selected
>> github, so if you want your comments to be part of the accountability
>> process, you should make them there.
>>
>>   It works well in some
>> >groups
>> >and even here with james snell, however some of us have made an
>effort
>> >to
>> >use other repos and the feeling is that the process is broken.  In
>> >particular with admin rights being granted to people with a clear
>> >conflict
>> >of interest who close down and lock issues before they have been
>fully
>> >discussed.
>>
>> I believe you're referring to a specific incident on about November
>30,
>> 2015, which led the WG to clarify its github issue process.   My
>> understanding is that incident arose from the editor simply being
>> unfamiliar with W3C process and instead using a different (more
>> dictatorial) process familiar to him.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Your own words on the github process described in the wiki : "The
>rules
>> >are
>> >TERRIBLY explained and justified"
>> >
>>
>> Sounds like me being apologetic and also angry about the above
>incident.
>>   The helpful thing to do in that case is ask for clarification where
>the
>> intent is unclear, and perhaps offer editorial suggestions.    I was
>> rewriting the document until I got the sense no one actually cared
>and
>> stopped spending my time on it.
>>
>> >Some in the WG have made an effort on github but found the process
>not
>> >to
>> >be a productive use of time.  Additionally, for structural problems
>in
>> >a
>> >specification, I might suggest that mailing list which has a wide
>> >readership can be helpful.
>>
>> I personally have no evidence anyone but you and I are reading this,
>or
>> that this is a productive use of time.    There probably are a few
>other
>> people still reading this, but they could just as easily read it via
>github
>> (which will happily email thread contributions to people.)   In fact,
>this
>> email list is limited to WG members, while the github issues are not,
>so in
>> sense github may lead to wider review.
>>
>
>Is it not a requirement of WG members to be subscribed to this list?
>
>"Each group *must* have an archived mailing list for formal group
>communication (e.g., for meeting announcements and minutes,
>documentation
>of decisions, and Formal Objections
><https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#FormalObjection> to
>decisions).
>It is the responsibility of the Chair and Team Contact to ensure that
>new
>participants are subscribed to all relevant mailing lists."
>
>http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
>

It's a requirement that everyone be subscribed, and the current WG management software ("dbwg") does that automatically, but virtually no one reads ALL their WG email.    Specifically, in my 15+ years at W3C, fully participating in roughly a dozen WGs, I only know of one person who claimed to read all their email for a particular WG.   A few other people have said they really tried to, but got lost during certain threads or when they went on vacation or something.   

This WG is an outlier in that there's very little email, in part because of the use of github.

I really can't imagine how much time would be wasted if everyone read everything on a typical WG email list.   It would be completely insane.   When you need everyone active in a WG (usually a small fraction of the official participants) to pay attention, you talk about it at a meeting.   It's good to also say the result in the subject and first line or two of an email.   But of course you can't say something deep down in an email, let alone far into a reply chain, and expect many people to read it.  That's much of the benefit of email over meetings: it doesn't waste your time when people talk about stuff that's unimportant to you.

Did you really not know that?   Did you really think all, or even most, of the 53 people listed at https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=72531&public=1 have been reading this whole conversation you and I have been having?   Honestly?

   - Sandro




>
>>
>>
>> > , I've been contacted out of band by a
>> >number of people in the space, supporting the points I make.
>> >
>>
>> Interesting claim.    Perhaps you should move this to github where
>they
>> can add to the support counters for your comments, if they don't want
>to go
>> so far as to actually comment.
>>
>> But I'd strongly encourage them, as I do you, to tell true stories of
>how
>> they tried to use webmention and ran into difficulties.    If they
>don't
>> have such stories, I'm sorry to say the foundation for their
>encouragement
>> sounds more emotional than factual.
>>
>> >This thread has been valuable in that it has established clearly
>that
>> >webmention is an extensible messaging system.
>>
>> I'm sorry, Melvin, but that's a ridiculous claim.  The extensibility
>was
>> always clear from the spec, which has a section on extensibility, and
>the
>> fact that it's a sort of messaging system is obvious since that's
>what all
>> networking protocols are.
>>
>> You tried to argue that it was a GENERAL PURPOSE messaging system.  
>If it
>> were then your argument that it should use a general purpose data
>format
>> would have considerable weight.    But it is not a general purpose
>> messaging system.  Quite the contrary.
>>
>>     - Sandro
>>
>>   As such it ought to at a
>> >minimum be compatible with the social syntax this group is chartered
>to
>> >create.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >Just not seeing why it should be REC, rather than Note, at this
>> >point.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Because it appears it will meet all the criteria for a Rec.
>> >Otherwise
>> >> it's like a 5th grade student being enrolled in the 2nd grade.   
>You
>> >seem
>> >> to think it really still belongs in 2nd grade but it's already met
>> >the
>> >> objective criteria for graduating 2nd and seems fairly likely to
>do
>> >the
>> >> rest soon.
>> >>
>> >> >What I'd like to see is webmention having a mapping to linked
>data,
>> >> >interoperate with that, and the millions of sites that use it
>> >> >(including
>> >> >facebook and google), and also to have its form encoded version,
>> >seems
>> >> >to
>> >> >be the best of all worlds.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Just because two systems use JSON-LD doesn't make them
>interoperable.
>> >>
>> >> Acting as if it does is the Semantic Web "handwaving" or "pixie
>dust"
>> >that
>> >> some folks find offensive.   It's what creates the "RDF allergy".
>> >>
>> >> There is adoption for ogp and schema.org in part because they're a
>> >whole
>> >> lot more constrained than just using RDF.  The other constraints
>are
>> >> necessary to provide interop.
>> >>
>> >> If you can show a plausible way to provide them for webmention,
>then
>> >I'll
>> >> be intrigued.    I've thought about it a lot and don't think it's
>> >possible.
>> >>
>> >>     - Sandro
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Jun 8, 2016 6:59 AM, "Melvin Carvalho"
>> ><melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 8 June 2016 at 11:28, Melvin Carvalho
>> ><melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On 4 June 2016 at 02:02, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> On 06/03/2016 07:15 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I've attempted to communicate for the last year, on irc and
>in
>> >> >aarons
>> >> >>>>> github area, but its sometimes been not an optimal use of
>time.
>> >> >So I'd
>> >> >>>>> like to formulate my objections to webmention here, for
>further
>> >> >review,
>> >> >>>>> with hopefully some possible solutions.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Hi Melvin,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> You've caught me at an excellent time to write a detailed
>reply
>> >--
>> >> >I'm
>> >> >>>>> on the plane to the F2F meeting.  This is just the right
>kind
>> >of
>> >> >work for
>> >> >>>>> this situation.  Hopefully this reply will make everything
>more
>> >> >clear.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> It looks to me like your objections here are based on your
>> >design
>> >> >>>>> sense, your general sense of what good designs look like,
>> >rather
>> >> >than on
>> >> >>>>> specific concerns about use cases that can be addressed with
>> >one
>> >> >design
>> >> >>>>> versus another.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> In the most recent previous discussion on this topic, at
>> >> >>>>> https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/39, I
>repeatedly
>> >> >asked
>> >> >>>>> you to provide specific use cases, to explain how
>> >developers/users
>> >> >would be
>> >> >>>>> affected by some change you're proposing.    I haven't seen
>an
>> >> >answer.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Perhaps you thought I was just doing that as way of
>dismissing
>> >> >you, of
>> >> >>>>> giving you busy work?    That's not the case.    I was doing
>it
>> >> >because by
>> >> >>>>> arguing from uses cases, a group has a reasonable chance of
>> >> >reaching
>> >> >>>>> consensus.  Arguing from design sense pretty much never
>leads
>> >to
>> >> >>>>> consensus.   It's a bit like the difference between science
>and
>> >> >religion.
>> >> >>>>> With the scientific method, disagreements can usually be
>> >settled
>> >> >by
>> >> >>>>> replicating experiments and developing new ones.   Not so
>much
>> >> >with
>> >> >>>>> religion.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> So, again, I'll say if you want to persuade the group of
>> >anything,
>> >> >I
>> >> >>>>> think you're going to have to lay out a use case.    I
>suggest
>> >> >taking some
>> >> >>>>> part of one of the agreed-upon users stories and show how
>the
>> >CR
>> >> >version of
>> >> >>>>> Webmention doesn't work very well but some alternate version
>> >> >you're
>> >> >>>>> proposing does.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Personally, I don't think you'll be able to do this.  I've
>been
>> >> >>>>> thinking about this space, a lot, for years, and I don't see
>> >the
>> >> >issues
>> >> >>>>> you're raising as the kind of issues that could lead to
>> >material
>> >> >use
>> >> >>>>> cases.   But you're welcome to try.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> A key question is what you're trying to do here.    If you
>want
>> >to
>> >> >>>>> improve Webmention, that's probably the way to do it.   If
>you
>> >> >just want to
>> >> >>>>> be a pain to the WG, you could raise a formal objection.  
>(I'm
>> >> >not going
>> >> >>>>> to consider this "objection" a "formal objection" unless you
>> >> >specifically
>> >> >>>>> use that phrase.)  But unless you can be more clear in the
>way
>> >I
>> >> >suggest
>> >> >>>>> above, I don't think that'll do anyone any good.   Normally
>a
>> >> >Formal
>> >> >>>>> Objection is used to make a Working Group spend some time
>> >> >seriously
>> >> >>>>> reconsidering some decision it made.   But I don't see a
>> >decision
>> >> >the WG
>> >> >>>>> has made around Webmention that it might change during a
>> >> >reconsideration,
>> >> >>>>> unless some new information was presented.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Thanks for responding to my concerns.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I was glad to learn that I am not the only person in the WG
>that
>> >> >has
>> >> >>>> reservations on this work.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I dont feel the concerns have been addressed, other than the
>> >hand
>> >> >>>> waiving, "I dont find that compelling" argument, which can be
>> >said
>> >> >about
>> >> >>>> anything.  I find this dismissive, and in this group,
>> >unfortunately
>> >> >I am
>> >> >>>> left with the feeling of relatively little recourse.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I will leave this thread open a while to gather feedback and
>I
>> >> >think the
>> >> >>>> advice is to document exactly what the concerns are and put
>them
>> >in
>> >> >a
>> >> >>>> document, so they can be understood.  Which I have begun to
>do.
>> >> >Much will
>> >> >>>> depend on how much time I have to do this.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> So, I think the issue here is that there are a number of
>people
>> >in
>> >> >this
>> >> >>>> group.  Some are coding regularly in this space, and some are
>> >> >familiar with
>> >> >>>> existing W3C standards that solve this problem, but few are
>> >both.
>> >> >So
>> >> >>>> perhaps that can also be documented.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> To clarify this is not a "formal" objection, because:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 1 It would need to be clearly documented
>> >> >>> 2 It would need to be worthy of the attention of a wider
>audience
>> >> >>> (director + w3c member) -- that's not clear to me at this
>point
>> >> >>> 3 It would need fail to be resolved in the WG (I think we
>still
>> >have
>> >> >>> space to do that)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I dont think 1/2/3 are currently met at this time.  So I will
>try
>> >> >and
>> >> >>> build out (1) because I think there are legitimate concerns
>> >around
>> >> >interop
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> My recommendation at this point, is for this work to be a
>Note,
>> >and
>> >> >leave
>> >> >>> the door open for further standardization.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Another thing you could do is help move forward one of the
>> >> >alternatives
>> >> >>>>> to Webmention.    Rhiaro mentioned in #39 how activitypub
>might
>> >be
>> >> >just
>> >> >>>>> what you want, and I understand there are several other
>> >possible
>> >> >directions
>> >> >>>>> one could go.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> A few more comments below, but the important part of my
>reply
>> >here
>> >> >is
>> >> >>>>> done.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 1. Universality
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Axiom 0 of the webstates that we should use URIs to name
>> >things.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I assume you're referring to TimBL's DesignIssues/Axioms
>> >document?
>> >> >>>>> That was written 20 years ago and reflects only one person's
>> >> >opinion.   The
>> >> >>>>> W3C Recommendation in this space, a few years later, which
>> >> >resulted from
>> >> >>>>> extensive discussion among TimBL, the appointed and elected
>> >> >members of TAG,
>> >> >>>>> and many members of the public, was AWWW.     I think you'll
>> >find
>> >> >AWWW
>> >> >>>>> includes a rather more restrictive and realistic version of
>> >this
>> >> >axiom:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 2.1. Benefits of URIs
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> The choice of syntax for global identifiers is somewhat
>> >arbitrary;
>> >> >it
>> >> >>>>> is their global scope that is important. The Uniform
>Resource
>> >> >>>>> Identifier, [URI <https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI>], has
>> >been
>> >> >>>>> successfully deployed since the creation of the Web. There
>are
>> >> >substantial
>> >> >>>>> benefits to participating in the existing network of URIs,
>> >> >including
>> >> >>>>> linking, bookmarking, caching, and indexing by search
>engines,
>> >and
>> >> >there
>> >> >>>>> are substantial costs to creating a new identification
>system
>> >that
>> >> >has the
>> >> >>>>> same properties as URIs.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Good practice: Identify with URIs
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> To benefit from and increase the value of the World Wide
>Web,
>> >> >agents
>> >> >>>>> should provide URIs as identifiers for resources.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> A resource should have an associated URI if another party
>might
>> >> >>>>> reasonably want to create a hypertext link to it, make or
>> >refute
>> >> >assertions
>> >> >>>>> about it, retrieve or cache a representation of it, include
>all
>> >or
>> >> >part of
>> >> >>>>> it by reference into another representation, annotate it, or
>> >> >perform other
>> >> >>>>> operations on it. Software developers should expect that
>> >sharing
>> >> >URIs
>> >> >>>>> across applications will be useful, even if that utility is
>not
>> >> >initially
>> >> >>>>> evident. The TAG finding "URIs, Addressability, and the use
>of
>> >> >HTTP
>> >> >>>>> GET and POST
>> ><http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet.html>"
>> >> >discusses
>> >> >>>>> additional benefits and considerations of URI
>addressability.
>> >> >>>>> From https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
>> >> ><https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I think it's pretty hard to argue that the strings "source"
>and
>> >> >>>>> "target" in Webmention posts should be URIs based on this
>> >advice.
>> >> > For the
>> >> >>>>> cases where one would want them to be URIs, a standard
>mapping
>> >is
>> >> >>>>> provided.  You could view Webmention as using URIs for this,
>> >but
>> >> >during the
>> >> >>>>> POST, the namespace is left implicit.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Most standards I know at the W3C adhere to this,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Does HTML?   Does CSS?   Do any of the HTML5 APIs?    Can
>you
>> >name
>> >> >a
>> >> >>>>> non-RDF spec that does?      Probably best to stay away from
>> >XML
>> >> >specs,
>> >> >>>>> since their use of URIs is highly contentious.   (As I
>> >understand
>> >> >it, XML
>> >> >>>>> only uses URIs as web addresses and unique identifiers, not
>to
>> >> >name
>> >> >>>>> things.   The difference is perhaps pedantic, but it's clear
>> >XML
>> >> >specs
>> >> >>>>> don't align with the Linked Data Principles, which I think
>> >TimBL
>> >> >would
>> >> >>>>> agree subsumes Axiom 0 in his own personal design sense.)
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Probably not worth the time to go through this, but if I had
>to
>> >> >guess,
>> >> >>>>> I'd say by count 10% of W3C specs adhere to this (my groups
>> >like
>> >> >RDF, OWL,
>> >> >>>>> and RIF tended to produce a dozen specs at a time) and by
>user
>> >> >base, 0.001%
>> >> >>>>> of the W3C specs adhere to this.   The weight of success is
>not
>> >on
>> >> >the side
>> >> >>>>> of this axiom, so it's not going to convince anyone.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> webmention does not use URIs for the source and target
>> >parameters.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> URIs can be derived out of band by reading the spec and
>using a
>> >> >prefix,
>> >> >>>>> but this is not ideal.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Here's where, if you want to convince anyone, you have to
>tell
>> >a
>> >> >story
>> >> >>>>> about something that's important and significantly easier
>with
>> >> >source and
>> >> >>>>> target being URIs on the wire.   I just don't see it.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 2. Using form encoded messaging for the social web
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Views on this differ, but IMHO it's very clear that
>messaging
>> >over
>> >> >the
>> >> >>>>> social web according to our charter should be in JSON.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> The chairs and I have addressed the charter issue elsewhere.
>> >> >Please
>> >> >>>>> keep charter discussions in separate threads, since they
>> >involve
>> >> >different
>> >> >>>>> people and are reviewed differently.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Webmention doesnt do this.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> To the extent that it's "just a signaling protocol" I
>suppose
>> >you
>> >> >could
>> >> >>>>> "get away with it".  But I dont think webmention is by any
>> >means
>> >> >just a
>> >> >>>>> signaling protocol.  It's an attempt to standardize
>messaging
>> >on
>> >> >the social
>> >> >>>>> web.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> How can you claim Webmention is "an attempt to standardize
>> >> >messaging"?
>> >> >>>>>   I don't see that in the spec.  I haven't heard that from
>the
>> >WG.
>> >> >  I
>> >> >>>>> haven't heard that from the implementors.   I haven't heard
>> >that
>> >> >from the
>> >> >>>>> users.   Where are you getting that?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I do, however, see how it could be *used* as part of a
>general
>> >> >>>>> messaging protocol:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 1. System "Alice" wants to send system "Bob" some message M1
>> >> >>>>> 2. Alice puts M1 on the web at URL U1, being sure to include
>> >some
>> >> >>>>> metadata the links to Bob.    At a minimum, something like
>"To:
>> >> >Bob" (where
>> >> >>>>> Bob is a URL)
>> >> >>>>> 3. Alice does the Webmention thing, "mentioning" U1 to Bob
>> >> >>>>> 4. Bob gets the mention, dereferences U1, reads M1
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> So, in this sense, Webmention could be a key part of a web
>> >> >messaging
>> >> >>>>> protocol.   It's has one advantage over the much simpler
>> >approach
>> >> >of "Alice
>> >> >>>>> POSTS M1 to Bob", namely that Alice is confirmed as the
>sender.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> But:
>> >> >>>>> - This isn't what Webmention was designed for; it's not
>clear
>> >> >anyone
>> >> >>>>> actually wants to use it for this.
>> >> >>>>> - If you do this, the actual message can be JSON or whatever
>> >Alice
>> >> >>>>> wants.   The *message* is M1, published at U1, *not* the
>> >> >form-encoded
>> >> >>>>> Webmention that was posted to Bob.
>> >> >>>>> - If you want to do this, consider instead just POSTing M1
>to
>> >Bob
>> >> >using
>> >> >>>>> some kind of authentication for Alice (eg OpenID Connect or
>> >> >WebID-TLS)
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> So, I see no argument here against the current design of
>> >> >Webmention.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Possible Solutions
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 1. Support JSON messaging -- the W3C has innovated in this
>area
>> >> >with
>> >> >>>>> some success
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 2. If we want to pass around messages using forms we should
>> >make
>> >> >the
>> >> >>>>> general case robust, scalable, extensible, interoperable and
>> >> >universal, and
>> >> >>>>> have webmention be an instance of such a system.  That's
>> >possibly
>> >> >outside
>> >> >>>>> the scope and timing of this WG, I dont know.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I'm not sure what those are solutions to, but they're
>probably
>> >not
>> >> >the
>> >> >>>>> problems Webmention is intended to solve.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Im still being guided as to the difference between the REC
>and
>> >> >Note
>> >> >>>>> tracks, but I'll put the suggestion out there to move
>> >webmention
>> >> >to a note,
>> >> >>>>> or move it back from CR.  I'm not an expert on this aspect
>of
>> >W3C
>> >> >process,
>> >> >>>>> but I'd like to raise these concerns to a wider audience, in
>> >> >particular, to
>> >> >>>>> folks outside the indieweb community.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> If you want people to pay attention to these concerns,
>either
>> >> >inside or
>> >> >>>>> outside the WG, I think you're going to have to develop a
>> >simple
>> >> >story
>> >> >>>>> about a problem that's solved with your modified Webmention
>and
>> >> >not solved
>> >> >>>>> with Webmention.   Or a story about how Webmention being
>> >adopted
>> >> >would do
>> >> >>>>> real harm to someone.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Frankly, I think you can find much better uses for your time
>if
>> >> >you
>> >> >>>>> want to work in this space, eg helping with activitypub.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>         -- Sandro
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>

Received on Sunday, 12 June 2016 19:15:38 UTC