@sandeepshettyShare is a better verb than Repost and Link is a better verb than Mention because... http://www.sandeep.io/45 #rssb #indieweb #converspace
tantek, b0bg0d, peck_lx, bnvk and eschnou joined the channel
aaronpksandeepshetty: that's a start. :) I still don't know how I can reliably parse markdown for only certain people's sites. most people aren't writing markdown
sandeepshettyif we were to follow a similar model then it looks like we'll end up only syndicating notes some of which are related to "sharing" articles?
sandeepshettyaaronpk: that leaves us with the issue of syndication other types of content like photos. We might have to revist the activity streams stuff again maybe
sandeepshettyI obviously haven't thought this through so let me start by saying why I think sending a ping is good.. from the perpective of the author it's good to know when my content is linked to...
aaronpkwillnorris: still need one lunch covered (or we can do lunch on your own at food carts one day) and so far we don't have dinner either day covered
willnorrismostly +1 to tantek's point. The fact that I am no longer is any actual AS implementation (either personally or at Google) is the main reason I try and stay out of current discussions
cweiskeanother context is that bookmarks are only once in the system, and can't be bookmarked twice. when that's the case, voting is the only way of expressing that the link is useful
willnorrissaying that AS has zero dogfooding my spec authors is certainly unfair. James Snell uses it extensively at IBM. I know Monica *was* using it extensively at socialcast, though I can't speak to what she's doing now
sandeepshettyyeah I've seen that :) just curious about why the AS folks didn't just add a reply verb (replied to a post) and have this weird indirection of "posted a comment with a inreplyto to a post"
willnorriswhat would the object of the activity be if the verb were "reply"? The new comment, or the thing being replied to? Either way, where would you express the other one?
sandeepshettyI see what you mean. I guess the difference between what I'm trying is embedding the info in the "new" object and not an abstract activity..
willnorristantek: that's at least more accurate, though I don't agree with the statement that you must be selfdogfooding, as opposed to corporate-dogfooding in order to have something relevant to say with regard to "present implementation / standards / building-blocks"
tantekwillnorris - if you can show me a counter-example, where only corporate dogfooding has helped a standard actually pragmatically advance, I'd love to hear about it / see it documented
willnorristhough exactly to your point, Chris and I no longer work on Activity Streams at Google… the folks working on activity related stuff (albeit mainly under schema.org) for both G+ and Gmail are newcomers to the space /shrug
willnorrissandeepshetty: yeah, that makes sense… just having the object. But having a lone object like that is simply interpreted as having an implied activity with the verb "post". So you're really right back where you started, albeit with less syntax
sandeepshettyright but that "post" is the difference between user posting the object vs the system posting an activity object... that post (verb) is also there with the activity?
willnorrisin an implied activity, the actor is unknown unless it can be inferred from the object, so it's not really interpreted as the system posting the object… it's just unknown
willnorrisXRD doesn't *really* have empty subjects. The <Subject /> element is optional, but only so that the logical subject can be identified by other means
willnorristhe only real use case at the time was for host-meta, which used an <hm:Host /> element. No one really cares about that use case anymore though, since webfinger doesn't use host-meta
sandeepshettywillnorris: I see what you mean... I guess the difference is more fundamental then: in my case it's an object with some context (verb) vs. with AS it's an activity that describes an object and it's context. Question is will I encounter issues by not having the abstract activity?
willnorrisan implied activity is different though, in that it really does have an unknown subject. An activity with no actor still makes sense and can still be useful (though maybe not as useful as if the actor were known). An XRD document without knowing what it is that you're describing it meaningless
willnorrissandeepshetty: where are you identifying the verb? Are you letting it be implied by the fact that the object as an in-reply-to, or are you making it explicit (in which case, I would assume that you have an actual activity object, no? even one without an actor?) ?
sandeepshettywithin the h-entry (object) I have an p-author/h-card (subject) and links in the h-entry are marked up with verbs (in-reply-to, repost, like)
willnorrissemantically, this maps to AS nicely. syntactically, it deviates a bit to the point that an AS parser probably wouldn't recognize, though I do like the simplicity of it
sandeepshettyjust realized that the problem I had in mind was because of someone else's incorrect implementation... you're right that should not be problem.
sandeepshettythanks that would be great.. I've always had interest but never really got into it... I would love the get your "it's real easy" perpective (assuming it's not coming from the I've crossed this jargon hurdle so it's simple for me now
sandeepshetty!tell cweiske: IMO, send a webmention when a link is bookmarked but don't send one for voting because it seems like an action on "your" software rather than on the link that was bookmarked. Does that make sense?