spec status

[Bill de hOra]

Hi,

some questions on the spec's status

1: when will the spec be fixed to be use valid Atom?

2: why is the version always atomactivity-00 and not issued as a series
of drafts?

3: are there any plans for the document be submitted to the IETF editor?

Bill

[Chris Messina]

On Nov 22, 5:02 pm, Bill de hOra <b...@dehora.net> wrote:
>
> 1: when will the spec be fixed to be use valid Atom?    

Can you enumerate the ways in which it's not valid ATOM? What needs to
be done to make it compliant?

>
> 2: why is the version always atomactivity-00 and not issued as a series
> of drafts?

That's one for Martin, but I imagine convenience.

> 3: are there any plans for the document be submitted to the IETF editor?

There are no plans that I know of, but that doesn't mean that we're
opposed to it.

This effort is intended to be licensed under the Open Web Foundation
Agreement [1], and if it receives broad interest and adoption, we may
push it through the standards track, but since the Activity Streams
format is an extension to Atom, I'd like to see how it does in the
marketplace before attempting to bring in a heavier-weight standards
process. Though, it's not entirely up to me — so I'm happy to
entertain alternative proposals.

Chris

[Martin Atkins]

Chris Messina wrote:
>
>> 2: why is the version always atomactivity-00 and not issued as a series
>> of drafts?
>
> That's one for Martin, but I imagine convenience.
>
>> 3: are there any plans for the document be submitted to the IETF editor?
>
> There are no plans that I know of, but that doesn't mean that we're
> opposed to it.

I'm using the xml2rfc tools mostly for editorial convenience, though
obviously that would prove useful if we did ultimately submit to the
IETF. I don't care too much whether it gets submitted to a standards
body as long as we sort out the IPR stuff, and it seems like the
community is largely in favor of using the OWF agreement for that
purpose. If it did go to any standards body it seems sensible for it to
be IETF -- the Atom serialization of it, at least -- since that is where
Atom came from.

The spec has not yet received a version number in the sense that the
xml2rfc tools think about it because the copy on my website is a
bleeding-edge rendered copy of the latest revision of the master branch
in the GitHub repository, and has as such not been blessed with an
actual version number. Once we published an actual named version
("Implementors Draft 1") it will presumably be published with a real
version number and will presumably be published somewhere less ephemeral
than my own website.

[Monica Keller]

New goal to nail this down: Dec 3rd during Supernova
We are going to assign a number and make it the official implementors
version

If there are any errors on the spec please submit them asap

[Bill de hOra]

I'll send Martin patches for the XML, and thanks for the clarifications.

Bill

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Activity Streams" group.
> To post to this group, send email to activity...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to activity-strea...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=.
>
>

[Monica Keller]

Thanks Bill !

Ill create an upcoming request for those interested in attending