Re: ActivityPub editor's draft

There are some flags we can set to get it to say it's from the CG. I will talk to Philippe about it.

Evan

On February 7, 2024 1:53:13 p.m. EST, 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
>>>
>>>
>>>