cwebber2tantek: one thing I wanted to go over was issue 25, eg how to handle replies and fallback, it talks about extensibility a bit, which is adding new features over time which we've done in general for PTD. So specifically for responses, any kind of response like likes, posts, shares, we almost always have text equivalent which is something we've seen when people post things to twitter, or facebook has an "all activity" page where you can
cwebber2tantek: that being the case, if some new response type comes up in the future, like you're bookmarking something or etc then you should always be able to say "hey this is a response" and then have text equivalent in summary property
cwebber2tantek: I feel pretty confident about this change so I wanted to bring to the group explicitly. other than objections and people saying "no you're wrong this will never work", I would like feedback on "this sounds reasonable", but I can accept lack of feedback. Ideally I'd like to say "accept my proposal and publish a new WD based on this change". that's my longest answer to you
rhiaro... at the end of last meeting, evan suggested we can still use the followers thing for the public subscribe, and pointed out that AS2 has a way of doing this kind of subscription using Offer and Accept/Reject on offer to do friend requests
Loqi[cwebber] Amy suggested over PM that:
* If a server returns 200 or 201, assume the follow just went through
* If returning 501, the server doesn't support following
* If a server returns 202, then the server will send an Accept / Reject
rhiaro... We could add a blocks property to actors and say hey it should be in this collection. Useful for client to server, but suepr weird because only the actor would be able to read that collection. So it would be weird to notice that on a person's profile
cwebber2/me eprodrom btw the reason you saw so many passing in the screenshot was because it was running against my implementation, testing against puck's found some more issues that need to be resolved on theirs, mistakes I had made also but had fixed in my implmentation
cwebber2sandro: more like traditional FOSS'y stuff, just assume everyone speaks for themselves and nobody has authority over anyone else, just document if nobody disagrees, if disagreement then document that too
cwebber2eprodrom: could I pose a suggestion, which is anything you don't feel comfortable unilaterally updating might not be an eratta? may be something normative or which needs to go into next version of spec?
cwebber2sandro: can be filed as a recognized problem, but we can't say here is the approved solution... we can only take a solution as far as what would be a working draft, but we can't have w3c recognition on approved solution
cwebber2tantek: but before we try to answser the hard problem, if there are any typos or etc that you can resolve by proposing errata text to add to the doc etc and add to them, that would be a good start
Loqi[cwebber] I've become over time a lot less of a fan of the "auto-wrap-in Create" feature, though I'm even *more* not a fan of requiring a Create at all... I think just-an-object could be the same as wrapping in Create, and the Create is indeed fairly artificia...
tantekas informally mentioned on the telecon this morning (audio) before we started officially, here's my summary and scene by scene listings of the features demonstrated in the The Social Network trailer, as material for a social web test where the different roles are performed by people with different services/sites/implementations: https://indieweb.org/The_Social_Network#Trailer
saranixa quote from hubzillaland "Protocols design is like this: if the protocol designer only can think of saying A, then all you will get to say is A. This is fine if all you want to say is A. If you can think of more to say than A, something clever, like B, but you are only allowed to say A, you will become unhappy fairly quickly. This is not the problem, the problem is the millions of people who believe getting to say A is really amazing."