W3C Social WG Launch

Skip to first unread message

James M Snell

Jul 21, 2014, 3:41:50 PM7/21/14
to activity...@googlegroups.com
FYI.. the W3C Social WG has officially launched:


Individuals interested in participating as Invited Experts should
contact the chairs (Tantek Çelik, Evan Prodromou or Arnaud Le Hors)

The Activity Streams 2.0 specification is being submitted to this
working group for consideration as a W3C Recommendation. As such, I
will no longer be submitting the 2.0 drafts to the IETF publication
process and instead will be using a Github repo to track current


Recognizing the fact that not everyone who participates on this list
is currently a member of the W3C, I will be making sure that any
significant issues that come up that need to be discussed are copied
to this mailing list for open discussion. Issues with the
specification drafts can be submitted via the Github repo but I ask
that technical discussion of those issues be directed to either the
W3C social WG mailing list (preferred) or to here.

- James

Andreas Kuckartz

Jul 21, 2014, 4:03:27 PM7/21/14
to activity...@googlegroups.com
Interested people should also join the new W3C Social Interest Group:

The page includes a section explaining how one can become a member of the group.


- James

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Activity Streams" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to activity-strea...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to activity...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Evan Prodromou

Jul 21, 2014, 4:46:43 PM7/21/14
to activity...@googlegroups.com
Do you feel like the IETF process and W3C process are incompatible?


James M Snell

Jul 21, 2014, 4:55:15 PM7/21/14
to activity...@googlegroups.com
Not incompatible at all. We can easily publish the documents in
parallel (both as W3C WG Working Drafts and as Independent Standards
Track I-D's. It's a bit more work given the document format
differences, but it's certainly feasible. If that's the direction the
WG wants to go, I'm happy to do it, but right off hand, I can't think
of a reason to dual-publish.
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages