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

It took me a few days to finish reading these specs, but here is my input
so far.

1.  rel=me - Yes this seems great, easy win.
2.  IndieAuth - I'm assuming this would not be scoped only to individual
auth server endpoints.  In the doc it technically says authentication can
be at a user's Web site or "a completely separate service" so yes,
technically this is appropriate but a lot of other language in the spec
implies single-user servers.  (Naturally).  For broader adoption including
not just IndieWeb but also multi-user ActivityPub situations, I'm assuming
a bunch of this language would be updated.
3.  MicroPub Yes.  This looks very useful to the ecosystem and I believe it
will drive better interop and adoption of activityPub and federated social
media.
4.  Ticket auth - This seems quite powerful for many use cases, but I would
rank it lower in order of needing to work on, than the above.
5. "extension with multiple interoperable implementations" unclear, would
like to know more.

Anyway I support getting started on all this!

Lisa




On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 11:40 AM James <jamesg@jamesg.blog> wrote:

> Thank you for sharing this list, Dmitri!
>
> To echo what Dmitri stated, a WG is not an end unto itself.
>
> With that said, this is an opportunity for us to progress several pieces
> of standards work based on our years of learning and seeing standards
> implemented and used in the real world.
>
> On the topic of scope, I would like us to consider the following:
>
>
>    1. Incubating rel=me as a W3C Note. IANA added rel=me to its link
>    registry yesterday (
>    https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml).
>    A lot of work has been done with rel=me but not all of it codified into a
>    single, refined document.
>    2. Advancing IndieAuth from a Note to a Standards Track document.
>    IndieAuth now has at least a dozen client and server implementations, with
>    supporting infrastructure implemented in at least seven programming
>    languages (see a list of client, server, and library implementations at
>    https://indieweb.org/IndieAuth).
>    3. Advancing Microsub to a Standards Track document. Microsub has five
>    client and seven documented server implementations (
>    https://indieweb.org/Microsub).
>    4. Private posts on the web. Initial work has been done in this regard
>    with TicketAuth (https://indieweb.org/IndieAuth_Ticket_Auth), although
>    has failed to garner additional efforts over the years. There are at least
>    five implementations by separate people, but I would need to hear
>    explicitly that at least a few people would be interested in advancing this
>    work. I believe in this initiative because of its utility: web-native
>    private posts address a gap in expression on the web that has not been
>    covered to the same extent as public posts.
>    5. Micropub extensions with multiple interoperable implementations for
>    inclusion in the main specification (
>    https://github.com/indieweb/micropub-extensions).
>
>
> Much work has been done over the years to advance ideas, with
> documentation, Issues, implementations, usage, community discussion and
> code as proof of said advancement, links to which can be found by browsing
> relevant links on the afore-linked pages.
>
> I do recognize that the above is a lot. These are my ideas, not a
> position. I would love input on what I have said above. I further invite
> input to all other threads on this topic, too; a lot of meaningful
> discussion has occured.
>
> James
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Tuesday, September 19th, 2023 at 12:19, Dmitri Zagidulin <
> dzagidulin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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'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.
>
> 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.
>
> Out of scope:
>
> * Authentication and identity
> * Portability profiles (profile import/export).
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>