Re: Scope for a possible new SocialWeb (AP/AS2) W3C Working Group charter

So, I think this comes down to what we mean by “breaking fixes”.

One example is that currently the `altitude` property can apply to any `Object`, not just a `Place`. We could either clarify that an altitude is only meaningful for a Place, or we could leave it.

That is theoretically a breaking change, but if there aren’t any implementations that use `altitude` for a `TentativeReply`, for example, then it is not practically breaking anything.

Another example is that ActivityPub doesn’t explicitly say that the members of the `followers` collection (or a few other collections) are unique. Making that clear would probably be helpful. But it’s technically a breaking change, even if no implementation actually does it that way.

Making this kind of tighter requirements that reflect actual usage may be helpful for implementers, even though they are technically normative changes.

Making normative changes that do not reflect actual usage would not be helpful.

I think we’d have to be careful with this whole area.

Evan

> On Sep 19, 2023, at 1:41 PM, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:
> 
> Melvin wrote:
>> "But will there be breaking fixes, for hte major bugs?"
>  
> Limiting the scope to addressing eratta would tend to reduce the risk of breaking fixes.
> 
> bob wyman
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 1:29 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> út 19. 9. 2023 v 13:20 odesílatel Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com <mailto:dzagidulin@gmail.com>> napsal:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> Over the past week or so, there's been some great discussion (both <a href="https://www.w3.org/2023/09/12-social-minutes.html">at TPAC</a> and on the <a href="https://mastodon.social/@bengo/111070439501615412">fediverse</a>) about whether to work with W3C to charter a new Working Group (for example, for spec maintenance and errata purposes, although other scopes have been discussed as well).
>> 
>> I think it's important to get consensus as to whether working on a charter is a work item for the group
>>  
>>> 
>>> I'd like to assure some of the concerned community members that a Working Group is not an end in and of itself. It's just a tool (admittedly, a heavyweight and powerful one) to accomplish the goals of the community. And so, it makes sense to discuss and vote on specific scopes to a potential WG charter, and only kick off the process if there's agreement on those scopes.
>> 
>> Scope is unlikely to be decided in an 1 hour meeting.  The SWXG was about 3 years of work which was then a long period before the SWWG was chartered.
>>  
>>> 
>>> Here's my example scope proposal, to start the discussion:
>>> 
>>> The SocialCG and the Fediverse community propose chartering a W3C Working Group for the purposes of specification maintenance of the ActivityPub and ActivityStreams 2 specifications.
>>> 
>>> In scope:
>>> 
>>> * Integrating the errata and fixes that have accumulated to the AP/AS2 specs.
>>> * Minor normative changes or clarifications to those specs that document extensive implementation experience, and have agreement from the community.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I guess the main discussion will be as to whether a new version of AP or AS will be worked on, in the next few years.  Consensus so far seems to be no breaking changes.  But will there be breaking fixes, for hte major bugs?  Does this warrant a minor or major version number.
>> 
>> I guess these things can be worked out in the coming months.  It will also need wide review from the existing eco system.
>>  
>>> 
>>> Out of scope:
>>> 
>>> * Authentication and identity
>>> * Portability profiles (profile import/export).
>>> 
>>> Thanks!