W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > June 2016

Reviewing Social Web Specs

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 15:47:33 -0400
Cc: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
To: "Janina Sajka, Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures" <janina@rednote.net>, "Michael Cooper, Staff Contact, Accessible Platform Architectures" <cooper@w3.org>
Message-ID: <576D8E55.5040207@w3.org>
I'm writing on behalf of the Social Web WG.  Some of our specs are now 
stable, and if we would value a review from your group at your earliest 
convenience.  While our primary use cases are often framed in terms of 
social media and blogging, the technologies may be broadly applicable.

So far we have three specs in or near CR:

    * *Webmention* lets you tell a website you're linking to it.  This
    supports ad hoc federation of sites

    https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/

    * *Activity Streams* (2.0) is a standard (and extensible) way to
    share a stream of what people do online (eg, "liking", posting a
    photo, etc)

    https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
    https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/

    * *Micropub* provides a standard Web API to create and control posts
    on your own website

    https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub/


Additionally:

    * *Social Web Protocols*: provides an overview, including an
    explanation for how the parts fit (and sometimes do not fit)
    together.  This document does not currently have any normative content.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/


There are other documents not yet ready for horizontal review. You'll 
see them linked from Social Web Protocols, and we'll send another email 
when they're in or near CR.

Note that the group is producing multiple stacks which are not entirely 
compatible, reflecting the fragmentation in this space. Basically, we 
decided having multiple competing specs, while not an ideal situation, 
would still be a step forward.

If you think your group will be doing a review, please reply-all and let 
us know your timeframe.  We'd very much appreciate the actual review 
comments being raised as issues on the repo for each particular spec 
(linked in the title section), and then a high-level email or summary 
issue stating when the review is complete.

Please feel free to share this call-for-review with anyone likely to be 
interested.

Thank you!

    -- Sandro Hawke, Staff Contact, W3C Social Web Working Group
Received on Friday, 24 June 2016 19:47:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 December 2016 15:48:24 UTC