Re: ActivityPub editor's draft

It's actually linked from the published recommendation:

https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/

So I think we should keep it where it is, unless there's a pressing need.

Evan

On 2024-02-06 4:25 p.m., Dmitri Zagidulin wrote:
> Evan,
> Thanks again for kicking this off, I'm incredibly excited about AP 
> getting an ongoing Editors Draft.
>
> One change that I'd like to propose, though -- can we move the AP 
> Editor's Draft to the SWICG github org?
> We don't want incoming developers to be confused that the 
> SWICG-stewarded changes represent the old WG's work.
> Meaning, we can add a link to the top of the TR that says something 
> like work is continuing at the SWICG, here's link to editor's draft, etc.
> It'll also help with the governance of the E.D., since most of us in 
> the group don't have access to the WG's repo.
>
> Dmitri
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:48 PM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> 
> wrote:
>
>     There is a new ActivityPub editor's draft available here:
>
>     https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/
>
>     It's based on incorporating errata that have accumulated over the
>     past
>     few years. It has no other changes. Changelog here:
>
>     https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changelog
>
>     There are issues with the introductory data, and ReSpec is grumpy
>     about
>     some of the metadata elements. I'm going to see what I can do to
>     improve
>     them.
>
>     Thanks to everyone who helped make this draft better.
>
>     Evan
>
>