Re: objections to webmention

On 13 June 2016 at 06:41, ann.bassetti <ann.bassetti@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Actually, I was wondering more if it'd be useful to have an FAQ that would
> cover some of the questions Melvin has been asking. My notion is, if one
> person is asking, then it's highly likely that others have the same
> question(s).
>
> Separately, it would also be great to have "Tips" for participating
> effectively in W3C. There is already an assortment of such info which has
> been collected here and there within the W3C realm. We, on the Positive
> Work Environment Task Force (which I now do-chair with Amy van der Hiel)
> are talking about trying to make a more cohesive set of that type of info.
> I/we would definitely welcome any inputs from anyone.
>

Ann, I think that's a great idea.  In this case, what would be helpful
would be guidance on the right approach if you have a technical argument
that you feel has not been fully addressed in a WG.  I suspect Im not the
only person that has this question.


>
>   -- Ann
>
> > On Jun 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>