Dennis SchubertJan 14, 2019

@cj Oh, I have missed that, as you published it when I was deep in writing my text. :) Thanks for reaching out! I added a "Amendments" section to my post, referencing your blog.

Basically, I do agree with large portions, but... If people are forced to have discussions anyway, then why not have those at a central entity and ultimately cast the results in referenceable specification documents?

Show threadperfect 🐰 foreverJan 14, 2019
@denschub @cj W3C moved on to SOLID basically. So we need to find a new central entity ;)
Show threadDennis SchubertJan 14, 2019

@kaniini @cj I never said the W3C is a good place for that. In fact, I said it is *not*. I don't care about linked data, or whatever tech stacks they push, I care about true openness and speed. Contributing to a WG is not really that open, and W3C processes are slow.

That's one of the reasons behind me bringing the XMPP up as an example in my post. The core spec has been published via the IETF track, but extensions happen in an independent, yet central, entity, the XMPP Standards Foundation.

Show threadperfect 🐰 foreverJan 14, 2019
@denschub @cj

that's kind of the model we are considering for litepub but there isn't unilateral consensus that litepub is the one true future because of the lack of preference for JSON-LD and LDS
Show threadDennis SchubertJan 14, 2019

@kaniini @cj Like, okay, I get it. JSON-LD and LDS is a hard discussion, and one that needs to be had. It's not an easy one, but one could find agreement.

One could find agreement IF and only if people would consent on that's needed in the first place. Besides some voices, most of the folks seem to be perfectly fine having a state where people are forced to talk to each other, without there being any attempt of creating a "true spec", or something like the model I outlined.

Show threadperfect 🐰 foreverJan 14, 2019
@denschub @cj

there has been some progress with litepub but it moves slow. litepub is useful if only that it provides a forum free of broken W3C thinking to get real answers about AP.

I do feel that we will eventually see a split between the JSON-LD/LDS/LDP camp and Litepub though. it will be a shame but it's probably the only way forward in the end...
Show threadDennis SchubertJan 14, 2019
@kaniini @cj Is there any way to follow the actual progress, that is *not* reading everything in pleroma's and mastodon's bug tracker? I've been sticking around in the irc channel for quite some time, but recently departed because there were a lot of discussions without outcome, and litepub.social is, unfortunately, not very helpful. :)
Show threadperfect 🐰 foreverJan 14, 2019
@denschub @cj

transparency is indeed something we need to work on, but there's quite a bit of dialog between Pleroma and Friendica, and so there is a coalition there to support litepub in some form. but it takes time. people want to code instead of write docs, too, which sucks.
Show threadDennis SchubertJan 14, 2019

@kaniini @cj Writing code is cool, if people know *what* to write... :)

Besides Friendica (I know Michael is very communicative), are any other folks (Mastodon?) interested in participating in LitePub?

Show threadDennis Schubert

@kaniini @cj The main reason I am asking is: Figuring out a way to communicate in a more discoverable manner (setting up a mailing list/discourse/whatever) is not hard. Turning ideas into specification-documents is also not impossible.

What *is* impossible, though, is being successful with that if only two out of N implementations agree that this is something they want to be part of, and that they want to work on their implementations to match whatever that group comes up with...

Jan 14, 2019 at 5:36pmWeb