Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Response Type: move "reply" to 2nd to last to enable p-summary fallback use-cases #25

Closed
tantek opened this issue Jun 14, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

Comments

@tantek
Copy link
Owner

@tantek tantek commented Jun 14, 2017

Based on implementer feedback from @aaronpk and @sebsel, it may make more sense to move the "reply" recognition step to 2nd to last in the Response Type Algorithm, that is, right before the "else it is a mention".

Specifically, anyone posting a "like", "repost", "RSVP", (or any other new response type!) has incentive to provide u-in-reply-to fallback plain text equivalent perhaps in p-summary that expresses the reaction/response as prose, e.g.:

  • like: "Tantek liked this post"
  • repost: "Tantek reposted this at URL"
  • tag-of: "Tantek tagged Sebastian in this photo"

This way even if the receiving site only supports receiving Webmention replies/comments, something sensible will still show up, and provide a good experience to the author of the response, the author of the post, and any readers of the post.

If we formalize this kind of fallback markup as a publishing guideline (perhaps a feature request for https://github.com/microformats/h-entry) it also provides a nice path forward for expanding response types over time that provide meaningful behavior even to existing systems without explicit support for the new response types.

@tantek tantek changed the title Response Type: consider "reply" for 2nd to last for fallback use-cases Response Type: move "reply" to 2nd to last to enable p-summary fallback use-cases Jul 21, 2017
@prtksxna
Copy link

@prtksxna prtksxna commented Jul 25, 2017

You'll have to help me understand this a bit better. Are you saying that newer kinds of replies, for example edits, should also include the u-in-reply-to class along with their own class (u-edit-of in this case) so that the author of the post can at least show it as a reply (if reply becomes the 2nd to last step)?

@tantek
Copy link
Owner Author

@tantek tantek commented Jul 25, 2017

@prtksxna precisely! All (especially newer) responses should include the u-in-reply-to to enable fallback behavior with p-summary with any consuming code that may or may not understand that particular type of response.

@tantek
Copy link
Owner Author

@tantek tantek commented Jul 25, 2017

Discussed in https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-07-25-minutes#Post_Type_Discovery today's Social Web WG telecon, with resolution of accepting editor proposal, and approving new WD with that change.

@prtksxna
Copy link

@prtksxna prtksxna commented Jul 27, 2017

Great! Thanks for the logs.

tantek added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 1, 2017
Resolve issue #25 with proposed change moving in-reply-to / reply recognition to last of explicit response type recognition (right before mention catchall for response type algorithm, and right before non-response types in full post type discovery algorithm). 

Link issue #s in changes section for easier accessibility.
@tantek
Copy link
Owner Author

@tantek tantek commented Aug 1, 2017

Changes made in repo and published updated WD: https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-post-type-discovery-20170801/

@tantek tantek closed this Aug 1, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants