We have a staging process for stuff moving from idea stage to recommendation.
https://github.com/swicg/potential-charters/blob/main/stage-process.md
FEPs by default don't have the IP statements that make them useful for incorporating into a W3C recommendation. They need to be submitted under the SocialCG CLA. I plan to submit all the ones I've authored.
Very cool. It's perfectly reasonable, and what I expected was probably the goal.
Thank you :)
@benpate the next version will be .1 . It's for clarifying a lot of the language in the documents to make them clearer and easier to implement.
We may make a new version after that. It must be backwards compatible; you should be able to negotiate or discover new and better features.
Yeah, the new work on ActivityPub is encouraging. Will this be a version 2.1? Or something bigger like a 3.0?
For me, the biggest opportunities might be to pull some of the FEPs into the spec, for instance, blessing some of the Threadiverse work as the official way to handle groups and discussions.
Is is possible that some FEPs might make their ways into the specs?
We are in a new editorial cycle for ActivityPub, so if anyone thinks these or other parts of the spec are underspecified, they should be opening issues on the ActivityPub repo right now!
I haven't been following the conversation, but I'll try to read back in time.
@strypey @smallcircles @benpate @deutrino @bengo
Likes are Like activities.
Boosts are Announce activities.
We don't have a separate activity for a reply, but we have a property of an object, inReplyTo, which is what defines a reply.
@emd you think in recursions, dont you?
@smallcircles
> A Like is but an ActivityStreams social primitive, a building block. The other 2 are domain-specific
Are Boosts and Replies not based on Activities standardised in Activity Streams 2.0/ Activity Vocabulary @evan?