Re: Reviewing Social Web Specs

Hi Virginie, thanks for the link to the questionnaire.   We'll take a look.

Can you help me understand how we should move forward, given, as you 
say, "low activity"?   Does that mean we shouldn't wait for a review?

Perhaps our best option is to use the questionnaire and come to you for 
advice if any specific issues arise, but otherwise proceed?

Thanks

        -- Sandro

On 06/27/2016 11:29 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
>
> 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.