W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

2016-11-03 Thread L. David Baron
A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final stage of being a W3C Recomendation: Webmention W3C TR draft: https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/ W3C Editor's draft: https://webmention.net/draft/ deadline: We

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

2016-11-03 Thread Tantek Çelik
Support :) I'm co-chair of the WG that produced this PR, as well as familiar with and contributed to its incubation/prototyping/implementation (including on my own site tantek.com) in the IndieWeb community before we brought it to a W3C WG for broader review and consideration. Happy to answer any

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

2016-11-03 Thread Martin Thomson
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:25 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > W3C Editor's draft: https://webmention.net/draft/ Wow, that is an extraordinarily wordy document for something that does so little. It's the first I've heard of this, but it's remarkably similar to (albeit much narrower than): https://ww

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

2016-11-03 Thread Joe Hildebrand
The JSON reference really needs to be to RFC 7159, not 4627. (blocking, but trivial issue) There should be some mention of the prior art in this space. Pingbacks and trackbacks at least. Please differentiate this approach from them, so we have an idea if we need to do this also. Many Wordpre

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

2016-11-04 Thread Tantek Çelik
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:25 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> W3C Editor's draft: https://webmention.net/draft/ > > Wow, that is an extraordinarily wordy document for something that does > so little. It was a lot shorter at the IndieWebCamp co

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

2016-11-04 Thread Tantek Çelik
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > The JSON reference really needs to be to RFC 7159, not 4627. (blocking, but > trivial issue) Will file an issue on that. > There should be some mention of the prior art in this space. Why in the spec? (honestly interested to know what y

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

2016-11-04 Thread Joe Hildebrand
> On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote: > >> There should be some mention of the prior art in this space. > > Why in the spec? (honestly interested to know what you think should be > in a spec without making it more wordy as Martin pointed out) Because there has been a lot of security

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

2016-11-30 Thread Tantek Çelik
Thanks very much for the detailed comments Joe. tl;dr We have to wrap this up tonight (W3C vote deadline) and I'm pretty sure I've captured the suggestions you've made (greatly appreciated) with public github issues (which hopefully you've received notifications thereof). public github issues fi