Re: ActivityPub editor's draft

Understood, yeah. And my suggestion is - we do have a pressing need. When a
developer sees the E.D. is served from the w3c/activitypub repo, that
implies that it's still stewarded by the WG, which is not the case.


On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 11:37 PM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>