- From: nightpool <eg1290@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 14:57:53 -0500
- To: dzagidulin@gmail.com
- Cc: Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>, "public-swicg@w3.org" <public-swicg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJY4u8F8cktH5AZBde-J-D+N4p5bgmd2imj7cth_x-2QQSO-ew@mail.gmail.com>
I don't think most developers or implementors make as nuanced as a distinction between the CG and WG as you seem to be implying. On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 1:53 PM Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>>
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2024 19:58:13 UTC