Re: Should the specs be forked and maintained elsewhere?

čt 23. 3. 2023 v 18:12 odesílatel Jacky Alcine <yo@jacky.wtf> napsal:

> On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 10:53 -0500, a wrote:
>
> AS3 and AP2 seem wholly unnecessary without concrete proposals on what
> such specs would include that isn't already covered by existing specs.
>
> However, I do agree that vocabulary acceptance is something that has been
> a historical challenge. Within the FEP process, we've had a proposal to use
> w3id.org/fep as a namespace for extension terms, and some years before
> that we had terms unofficially grafted onto the as: namespace -- Hashtag,
> manuallyApprovesFollowers, movedTo, sensitive. Therefore it would be
> helpful if:
>
> 1) there was a move to adopt some or all of these unofficial terms as
> officially part of the namespace
>
>
> Agreed, we can't break existing software for the sake of a fork. It'd be a
> disadvantage to the larger community and would also look this group look
> very immature.
>
> 2) additional guidance or mechanisms were given to the community to extend
> AS2 via JSON-LD without having their own "vendor", or doing so in a
> "vendor-independent" way
>
>
> For those reading, not only is this possible today but is one of the
> underutilized parts of ActivityStreams2 (only by those choosing not to do
> so, Mastodon has and been able to build a moat of sorts).
>

Could you elaborate more on the mastodon case and "moat"

I remember distinctly at the Paris Face to Face at the social web working
group where means for extending the vocabs came up

There was talk of an extension mechanism, and I argued that JSON-LD already
had built in extension mechanisms that could be used, and that seemed to be
a satisfactory response

However, I agree that these extension mechanisms are less understood and
could do with better documentation.  In fact in the last few years I've
been trying quite hard to unify JSON-LD and JSON with easier extensibility
and I think I've made a bit of progress.  Though that is best shared on
another thread.


>
> 2.5) such extensions were formally managed by an "activitystreams
> standards foundation" similar to the XSF. if this is not done, i suspect
> the FEP process will continue as-is regardless and effectively fill this
> role ad-hoc, but some formal recognition and participation might be nice
> assuming we avoid corporate capture of the process.
>
>
> I strongly agree with the need of an equivalent to the XSF - that'd make
> the W3C meeting space just a way for the public to engage if they're coming
> from a software or standards side.
>

 What would the XSF look like?  My main question is whether participation
from people in the free and open source community would need to pay.  If
so, how much.  Most of us have small budgets :)