Re: [CfC] Erratum for ActivityPub on the definition of `inbox` the property

Hi Ben,

I'm a little confused at what the specific objection is here. It seems like
the errata was proposed with insufficient formality and rigour?

At the very least, from the perspective of the issue filed and the
discussion within, the errata seems to address the issue:
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/289#issue-289370075

> Please either omit "reference" when describing the inbox, permitting
implementors to inline the OrderedCollections or not, or standardize
"reference" to mean inlining the actual ActivityStream data is not
permitted.

Omitting "reference" addresses the issue. The resolution to the issue is to
remove the word "reference" which is currently present in the description
for `inbox` but not for `outbox`. There isn't a good reason or
justification to prevent embedded representations for either `inbox` or for
both `inbox`/`outbox`, so the alternative resolution of adding "reference"
to the description of `outbox` isn't a good idea. Nor would it make sense
to say that `inbox` is always a reference while `outbox` might be either.

>  Without more context, it actually reads to me like it's trying to say
the inbox will always be an embedded object and not a uri reference, which
I don't think is [the] intention? [...] the text [Evan] proposed is likely
to be interpreted like these values may not include uri references, which
generally would make it a normative change and not an errata

I don't think this is true. Stating that it is a "reference" is likely to
be misleading, but the absence of this word does not imply that a
"reference" is disallowed.

If you believe that removing the word "reference" is insufficient to
resolve the issue (despite the issue proposing exactly this as a solution),
then let's work on a better resolution. Maybe we can come up with better
wording? Possibly it could be done as a separate errata.

---

Finally, I want to address the following refrain:

>  I also wonder if we should solicited input from the author of issue 289
before CFCing any candidate correction [...] let’s solicit feedback on the
erratum (not necessarily any candidate solution) from the author of issue
289

The author of the issue has been inactive on GitHub, the fediverse, etc.
for over 3 years now, and for all we know, they might well be dead.
Addressing the issue would ideally take the issue author's input into
account, but this cannot be a strict requirement or the issue will never
get resolved. I think the 2 week / 14 day CfC period generally suffices
since it in theory includes the issue author.