RE: Reviewing Social Web Specs

Sandro,
The web security IG wish to be able to perform the security review, but we have a low activity at the moment.
Note that there is a security and privacy questionnaire that may help you to raise appropriate questions and include warning about sensitive assets in your specification.
The questionnaire is located here : https://w3ctag.github.io/security-questionnaire/

Regards,
Virginie


From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
Sent: vendredi 24 juin 2016 21:46
To: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>; "Wendy Seltzer, Staff Contact, Web Security IG", <wseltzer@w3.org>
Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org
Subject: Reviewing Social Web Specs

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
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.