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
> 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
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
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
