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

Add TR/2024/protocol-20240512 #651

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 3, 2024
Merged

Add TR/2024/protocol-20240512 #651

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 3, 2024

Conversation

csarven
Copy link
Member

@csarven csarven commented May 14, 2024

Add Solid Protocol, Version 0.11.0. Publishes:

"This version" is a request to be published as a CG-DRAFT report of the Solid CG.


The #changelog section indicates changes since TR/2022/protocol-20221231.

Preview | Diff

@csarven csarven added this to the Release 0.11.0 milestone May 14, 2024
@csarven csarven self-assigned this May 14, 2024
@csarven
Copy link
Member Author

csarven commented May 14, 2024

@ W3C Team :

The copyright line in this PR adheres to the Community Group Report Requirements. So, the following statement, which appears in the Editor's Draft, has been removed:

All code snippets are in the public domain, CC0.

@ianbjacobs @rigow, if the above statement is deemed acceptable for inclusion in the CG-DRAFT (this PR), please inform us (CG) so that it can be added to this PR.


@ Solid CG :

# PROPOSAL 1
Publish TR/2024/protocol-20240512 (and update TR/protocol)
# PROPOSAL 2
Pre-approve the publication of PROPOSAL 1, including possible editorial changes (correction classes 1-2), where they are first made to ED/protocol, and then integrated into documents listed in PROPOSAL 1. SC to update PR and merge.

The purpose of this PR is to publish "This version" and "Latest published version," both based on the latest editor's draft: https://solidproject.org/ED/protocol. All other types of change requests should go through the editor's draft instead of this PR and may potentially be incorporated into a separate version.

@ianbjacobs
Copy link

@csarven, thank you for working on this. I will try to get back to you quickly regarding your copyright question.

protocol.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
protocol.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
protocol.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@elf-pavlik elf-pavlik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Version 0.11.0. Publishes:

I just noticed that this document doesn't clearly communicate it's version 0.11 0

@ianbjacobs
Copy link

@csarven,

@rigow and I chatted. First a question: what does "code snippets" refer to? I looked at the spec and the only thing that looked like a code snippet was one example in section 5.3.1.

Regarding copyright here is our guidance:

  • Use the CLA license for the full specification.
  • ALSO, in a separate file that does not include the specification text, put any code and indicate there that the code is available under cc0. (You could direct people there from a variety of places.)

I hope that will work,

Ian

@coolharsh55
Copy link
Contributor

Hi. Noticed one of the acknowledged persons have their name in Telugu (I think - దామోదర) and not in English (the language of the document): Is this intentional?

@csarven
Copy link
Member Author

csarven commented May 16, 2024

@coolharsh55 Yes, it is intentional. Source markup is <span lang="te" xml:lang="te">దామోదర</span>. I wanted to use names in original languages as much as possible. I have pinged @damooo on Matrix a few days ago as to what they'd prefer, but didn't get a response yet. Thanks for the ping, perhaps they can chime in with their preference.

If you or others prefer their name to use a specific lang tag, please let me know or PR against the editor's draft.

@csarven csarven force-pushed the TR/2024/protocol-20240512 branch from efe36aa to 2cc2729 Compare May 19, 2024 23:05
@csarven
Copy link
Member Author

csarven commented May 20, 2024

@elf-pavlik :

In Solid Protocol ED, I've introduced a dl for "Version" using semver as value:

Same goes for:

If that's adequate (for you), let me know, they can make their way into their respective CG-DRAFT PRs.

@csarven
Copy link
Member Author

csarven commented May 20, 2024

Thanks @ianbjacobs @rigow .

Yes, in this particular case, the code in applying an N3 patch example.

I'd like to note that while the code in this particular example is valid, can be processed and executed, it relies on particular "example" data that is essentially unlikely to occur in the wild with the potential case of data/scripts part of a Test Suite (QA). Anyone wishing to not get tangled up with licensing in their test software, i.e., if W3C Software license is not preferable and CC0 is, could change the terms in the example code.

IANAL, but even in the case where the specification may be interpreted as "software", the example code possibly being under the CC0 license doesn't offer anything besides the W3C Software license (as per the Solid CG charter: https://www.w3.org/community/solid/charter/#license ).

Thus far we had no need to separate the example code from specifications into separate files, so I do not see an incentive at the moment. If such need arises, we can do that.

My suggestion to the Solid CG:

  1. Keep this PR as is without the mention of "All code snippets are in the public domain, CC0."
  2. Also update the ED to remove the said text.

(And do the same for the other specifications proposed as CG-DRAFT.)

I believe this is still compatible with the Solid CG charter but 1) IANAL, 2) we already had long discussions on this topic when working on the charter, and 3) at the end of the day it needs to be acceptable by W3C if we want to publish a W3C CG-DRAFT report. But I understand that some individuals may have a different perspective or preference, so I'm all ears as to what the CG wants here.

@elf-pavlik
Copy link
Member

In Solid Protocol ED, I've introduced a dl for "Document Version" using semver as value

This works, thanks! I would consider calling it "Semantic Version" since this name is already broadly recognized.

Copy link
Member

@kjetilk kjetilk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe it is worthwhile to update the spec now to reflect the upstream changes to HTTP specs. I have also revisited #621 and to verify that the removal of the #server-put-patch-uri-assignment does indeed not affect conformance. I believe this is good to go.

Copy link

@rubensworks rubensworks left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!

Copy link

@NSeydoux NSeydoux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!

Copy link
Contributor

@timbl timbl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@csarven csarven force-pushed the TR/2024/protocol-20240512 branch from 2cc2729 to 6936b8b Compare June 3, 2024 12:47
@csarven csarven merged commit 1073dcc into main Jun 3, 2024
@csarven csarven deleted the TR/2024/protocol-20240512 branch June 3, 2024 12:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.