High level feedback on Canvas Formatted Text: Please harmonize this work with the CSS Houdini effort. In addition you may want to take a look at some of the prior work in: SVG2 Chapter 11: Text.
tToday: 14 miles in Marin with pal @bryanting. Filled out my 2020 ballot and dropped it off at the local ballot dropbox. #Voted
7 years ago yesterday, showed up to @Nov_Project_SF. Last year: https://tantek.com/t53L2 Yesterday was a rest day, registered for 2021-08-22 #baytobreakers: https://baytobreakers.com/ Previously: https://tantek.com/t53L1 #2020_304 #20201030
@dens I remember 2009, when our worst complaints about #socialmedia were too many failwhales. Congrats on Marsbot for AirPods! Could you allow sign-in with @Foursquare (OAuth) instead of a phone number for those of us without one or avoiding SIMjacking?
High level feedback on Canvas Formatted Text: Please harmonize this work with the CSS Houdini effort. In addition you may want to take a look at some of the prior work in: SVG2 Chapter 11: Text.
Similar to The Google WebID privacy threat model document, the IndieAuth specification should have a brief non-normative “Privacy Threat Model” or “Privacy Considerations” section, perhaps right after the Security Considerations section, or alternatively as a separate document which the spec links to.
This is not an “editorial mistake” from the perspective of those that carefully reviewed the Process document with the voting changes and in particular interpreted the only logical way that the election could be implemented given the text of the document (literally STV per seat for the number of seats in an election), and only approved the process accordingly. Several AC reps would have filed formal objections to the process had this been dropped before the Process went to review, and before that, in the AB. The Process also doesn’t say, implement whatever voting experiments were run, so the excuses that have been made to justify running the subsequent elections as they have been run (“but the experiments!”) also hold no justification in the Process document. Both of those are deemed objectionable enough to not remove this text from the Process and yes that leaves us at an impasse that the AB must take-up to resolve, especially towards a future where we may/will be relying even more on elected bodies to resolve conflicts rather than a BDFL “Director”. I do not expect to see this resolved for 2021.
science & personal responsibility. that’s it. that’s the tweet.
At least stop reading Facebook & YouTube algorithmic feeds, and turn off all #socialMedia notifications. More from @mantonsblog: https://www.manton.org/2020/09/14/stop-using-facebook.html @aaronpk How to leave Facebook: https://aaronparecki.com/2020/06/14/14/how-to-leave-facebook Want smaller steps? https://indieweb.org/Facebook#How_to_wean_yourself_from
Make #October the month you block Facebook, YouTube, and anywhere else recommending misinformation, yes a #Blocktober of sorts. See Also: * https://twitter.com/mantonsblog/status/1305983204281769986 * https://jgregorymcverry.com/Blocktober
As illustrated by the 2020-10-02 draft newsletter, the Top Edited Wiki Pages includes User: pages which are more personal projects or bot updates and don't really add significant information to the This Week newsletter. User: pages should be omitted from the Top Edited Wiki Pages section.
The current h-entry change control process does not specify how to update the definition of a proposed feature, which means it falls back to being as strict as updating a stable feature which is more strict that desired for proposals. This issue is for considering a proposal for updating the definition of a proposed feature, as discussed during the recent Microformats Issue Resolution pop-up.
Proposal: the definition of a proposed feature may be updated to be more consistent with one or more real world public web sites publishing and or consuming the feature, by citing URLs for those examples in an edit summary. New proposed property or value definitions may also be added for consideration per the existing requirements for adding a proposed feature. If you’re not sure whether to update an existing definition or add a new definition, try to work with the proposer(s) of an existing definition to come to a consensus to update it. Lacking consensus, add a new definition for consideration, retaining any previous definition(s).
This proposal also adds a convergence requirement for moving a feature from proposed to draft. If there are multiple definitions for a proposed feature, an issue must be opened to discuss how to converge the definitions by consensus agreement among those with real world public web sites publishing and or implementations consuming the feature.
This is a rough first draft, feel free to propose alternatives, simplifications, editorial suggestions.
Runair is awesome! Would be great to give an explicit open source license like CC0 (preferred), or BSD, MIT, Apache etc. of your preference and mention it in README.md.
For example, the IndieWeb newBase60py library uses CC0: https://github.com/indieweb/newBase60py and you could copy this LICENSE file in its entirety https://github.com/indieweb/newBase60py/blob/master/LICENSE
@adamroach: > where you're seeing "non-harmful" here? The first link (420 comment) you quoted.
@annevk, per your comment in https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/420#issuecomment-669759232, could you summarize here (in this issue) our reasoning for changing to a "non-harmful" position, rather than "defer", and with explicit reasons for why we are downgrading from our previous "worth prototyping" position. To be clear: I’m not disagreeing with "non-harmful". Thanks.