Re: ActivityPub editor's draft

One question. Can I make issues and possibly pull requests against it ?

Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org

Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher,
Information Theorist, and Computer Scientist.



On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 21:03, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>