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

It's a fair point; we usually go through a cycle of labelling issues "waiting for commenter" (WFC) before going out to the group.

I think I didn't take the step this time out because the commenter hasn't been active on GitHub for 4 years, and because the erratum was exactly as he had proposed.

If we come back with a new erratum that meets Ben's criteria, we can tag the issue WFC and give Cory Slep a week or two to reply before doing a new CFC.

Evan

On June 7, 2025 5:52:17 PM EDT, a <a@trwnh.com> wrote:
>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.