Re: Collecting data on WAC and ACP usage

On 2026-03-20 11:13, Jesse Wright wrote:

> Following Wednesday's CG call <https://github.com/solid/specification/ 
> pull/768/changes>, we are collecting data on WAC and ACP implementations 
> across Solid applications, servers, pod services, and test suites. This 
> information will help determine which specifications are recommended for 
> Solid26 <https://docs.google.com/document/ 
> d/1HxaShh5MVRBcimo9uXrtpWPCW6Xo5S9aOLdFAQX2oJY/edit?tab=t.0>.


I think this initiative could use some footnotes, so to speak, and it'd 
be important to be clear about them, and the messaging around it.

Needless to say, gathering data to get a glimpse of usage or 
implementations is useful. It is however entirely a separate matter who 
is actually trying to communicate that data, analysis, or whatever 
follows from there.

For instance, the "Solid26" document, which seems to be LLM generated 
content, and not editable by the community, is not a Solid CG matter. 
The fact that it is on Google Docs, is ironic to say the least for 
pitching Solid stuff, but maybe that's just me :) In any case, if 
Solid26 is an ODI driven initiative, it'd be great to say that clearly.

Let's be careful to not conflate the messaging around the promotion of 
what Solid26 entails from the work that goes on in the Solid CG. There 
is no need to rehash or rebrand what the Solid CG is promoting. Solid CG 
is 100% run under the W3C umbrella, nothing else. This is not a debate. 
The CG's work items can be navigated from https://solidproject.org/TR/ .

There are other concerns with Solid26 with the topic at hand. The 
authors / curators of it seem to have already made up their mind with 
their preference on ACP over WAC. And this also seems to align with 
other messaging / work elsewhere, but not actually representative of the 
Solid CG. The documentation literally mentions ACP as part of its "core 
specification" and there is not a single mention of WAC anywhere in the 
document. Why? If this is an oversight, then this type of thing should 
be communicated by individuals or teams that have a "solid" 
understanding of the Solid specifications as well as the ecosystem. And, 
perhaps most importantly, do it in an unbiased manner.

...

-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i