Re: [CfC] Type property in example 102

Thanks for documenting the error and publishing the CFC here Evan.

+1 to erratum describing that it was an error omitting `"type": "Link"` in that example because it was always intended to illustrate a simple conformant `url` referent.

Rationale:
The value there before was conformant. `type` is optional. But because `type` was omitted it led to confusion about whether `type` MUST be omitted or SHOULD be omitted (which is not the case).

> On May 23, 2025, at 9:42 AM, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:
> 
> Issue 444 in the Activity Streams 2.0 GitHub repository describes an unclear example in the Activity Vocabulary document, wherein a `Link` object does not have the `type: "Link"` property defined:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/444
> 
> To fix this problem, I've made a PR to add an erratum that adds this property to the example code:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/pull/585
> 
> We usually handle approval of errata in our synchronous meetings, which takes time and focus away from other topics that require more immediate presence and conversation. In speaking with the chairs and others in the issue triage meeting, we think that handling this task through the CFC decision-making process will be more efficient.
> 
> So, I am seeking consensus to add this erratum to our errata document for Activity Streams 2.0. Please reply either to the GitHub issue or here on the mailing within 14 days of this message.
> 
> Evan
> 
>

Received on Friday, 6 June 2025 19:28:46 UTC