csarven on main
Update solid-oidc reference. Ba… (compare)
csarven on main
Add 2022-05-18 minutes (compare)
Are the bookmarks etc in the Specs going to persist - or are they not reliable as URI references to mission critical system specs?
Yes, intended to "persist". In a long enough time, probably not. I've created/proposed a pledge for URI persistence from for the technical reports under solidproject.org: solid/solidproject.org#489 -- you'll have to follow-up on the linked issues.. Can discuss finer details.
I would however take the current state as draft - re "Editor's Draft" as far as the Status of the Document goes. So, expect changes.. there are some units of information that I didn't get to which will probably get renamed.
Regarding your intentions/needs, I have my full support. This is also something that CSS is doing/will do eg. referencing distinct requirements in context of the code that's implementing it.
Maybe I'm asking for something different - a reliable master index of URI's for all the solid specs and their sections
You'll get that eventually re "reliable". See for example: http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller?command=serialize&url=https:%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fldn%2F&format=rdfa&output_format=turtle&raw -- W3C's snapshot is frozen.. That's the URI-R (Original Resource).. URI-M is https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-ldn-20170502/ (the URI that W3C pledges for persistence). See PR 489 above.
Good news everyone!
We're (again) in contact with the W3C Web Platform Incubator CG and this time we're looking into exchanging our notes/work over a meeting:
I've mentioned WICG's work/initiative around "WebID" in the authentication-panel awhile back:
February 22 (Monday) at 17:00 GMT (for a ~2h session, TBD) is the proposed date for the meeting.
Issue/discussion from 2019-07 on supporting RDFa in specifications (based on prior experience): solid/specification#6
One of the reasons why bikeshed/respec (compiling) pipeline is not used for /TR/ , /TR/ecosystem , /TR/protocol , and soon /TR/web-access-control , (and hopefully other reports will follow along) is that it doesn't fit the Solid pipeline ie. what Solid servers (eg. NSS, CSS, ESS..) and applications can do (eg. dokieli). The template is already in place.. and after some more restructuring, we'll have fine-grained statements (eg. all the bits of a requirement). The LDN spec did it up to a point of identifying and describing the requirements - I ran out of time back then to do more with the test suite. Now we have that possibility.
See also Linked Specifications, Test Suites, and Implementation Reports: https://csarven.ca/linked-specifications-reports (2017) for an overview on existing work and how all major components fit together.
did:webproposal. I wrote up details on https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/217#issuecomment-777375570
OK, so, I didn't hear back from anyone re topics with CCG.. besides @bblfish's solid/authentication-panel#126 ... so going to stick to their suggestions, bblfish's, and mention zcap perhaps.
As for meeting with WICG, I take it that we'll stick to the suggested date (Feb 22) - will keep everyone posted if there is any specific agenda beyond intro to Solid's use of WebID, Solid-OIDC, and WICG's WebID.