Creating a new issue just to have it about mprocessing_tests HOT 11 CLOSED

4. PRs

See github pull request #1.

Justin Richer: a number of the resolutions resulted in two PRs
… 454 adds language about representation syntax that explains why properties for those
… this PR proposes language for the spec that clarifies that
… this PR has resulted in good conversation and has pretty wide approval so far
… so we would like to accept this PR as a good step forward

Daniel Burnett: normally with PRs we give a 7 day review window, however in this case we need this PR to move forward

Manu Sporny: We have a lot of positive reviews. I could quickly review it in 5 minutes.
… just noting that we have a lot more support for these PRs that we've had before. The editors are happy with them and I'm seeing a lot of alignment.

Daniel Burnett: Can we first see if there are any objections to merging?
… Is there anyone who would object to merging PR 454?

Michael Jones: I would object without some editorial corrections

Daniel Burnett: maybe we should talk about patent policy first

Jonathan Holt: PR 454 is still too abstract

Daniel Burnett: please add that comment to the PR

Ivan Herman: Since that PR puts in writing what was decided and resolved at the F2F. If it faithfully represents the decision at the F2F, then it should be merged.

Amy Guy: +1 what ivan says

Markus Sabadello: +1 to ivan. Note that we can also merge and then make additional improvements afterwards (e.g. regarding terminology).

Daniel Burnett: agrees

Michael Jones: The problem is that the PR does not faithfully reflect what was decided. It deletes the language about unrecognized properties must be ignored.
… If someone can go to the minutes and find the text, I will add that to the PR.

Justin Richer: I agree that this isn't sufficient but it's not meant to be complete yet. Same with the 455

Dave Longley: selfissued, https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Daniel Burnett: thank you, that's good input, we'll return to this shortly
… and the editors can think about how to move forward with that input

Michael Jones: There was an earlier meeting - I think a special topic call - in which we resolved something like "Properties that are not understood MUST be ignored". Can anyone locate that resolution?

Dave Longley: selfissued, in the last meeting we all agreed "ignored" wasn't well defined, so we did this resolution: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Dave Longley: selfissued, that is the language that is in the PR now and it applies to all representations, not just JSON, hence the old confusing "ignored" language has been removed

Michael Jones: I found it: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-03-did#resolution2 : "Unrecognized properties MUST be preserved."

Dave Longley: selfissued, and that is now in 454 in a more explicit way: https://github.com/iherman/minute_processing.json/pull/454/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051R2250-R2255

Dave Longley: selfissued, and it covers all representations.

4. PRs

See github pull request #1.

Justin Richer: a number of the resolutions resulted in two PRs
… 454 adds language about representation syntax that explains why properties for those
… this PR proposes language for the spec that clarifies that
… this PR has resulted in good conversation and has pretty wide approval so far
… so we would like to accept this PR as a good step forward

Daniel Burnett: normally with PRs we give a 7 day review window, however in this case we need this PR to move forward

Manu Sporny: We have a lot of positive reviews. I could quickly review it in 5 minutes.
… just noting that we have a lot more support for these PRs that we've had before. The editors are happy with them and I'm seeing a lot of alignment.

Daniel Burnett: Can we first see if there are any objections to merging?
… Is there anyone who would object to merging PR 454?

Michael Jones: I would object without some editorial corrections

Daniel Burnett: maybe we should talk about patent policy first

Jonathan Holt: PR 454 is still too abstract

Daniel Burnett: please add that comment to the PR

Ivan Herman: Since that PR puts in writing what was decided and resolved at the F2F. If it faithfully represents the decision at the F2F, then it should be merged.

Amy Guy: +1 what ivan says

Markus Sabadello: +1 to ivan. Note that we can also merge and then make additional improvements afterwards (e.g. regarding terminology).

Daniel Burnett: agrees

Michael Jones: The problem is that the PR does not faithfully reflect what was decided. It deletes the language about unrecognized properties must be ignored.
… If someone can go to the minutes and find the text, I will add that to the PR.

Justin Richer: I agree that this isn't sufficient but it's not meant to be complete yet. Same with the 455

Dave Longley: selfissued, https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Daniel Burnett: thank you, that's good input, we'll return to this shortly
… and the editors can think about how to move forward with that input

Michael Jones: There was an earlier meeting - I think a special topic call - in which we resolved something like "Properties that are not understood MUST be ignored". Can anyone locate that resolution?

Dave Longley: selfissued, in the last meeting we all agreed "ignored" wasn't well defined, so we did this resolution: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Dave Longley: selfissued, that is the language that is in the PR now and it applies to all representations, not just JSON, hence the old confusing "ignored" language has been removed

Michael Jones: I found it: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-03-did#resolution2 : "Unrecognized properties MUST be preserved."

Dave Longley: selfissued, and that is now in 454 in a more explicit way: https://github.com/iherman/minute_processing.json/pull/454/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051R2250-R2255

Dave Longley: selfissued, and it covers all representations.

4. PRs

See github pull request #1.

Justin Richer: a number of the resolutions resulted in two PRs
… 454 adds language about representation syntax that explains why properties for those
… this PR proposes language for the spec that clarifies that
… this PR has resulted in good conversation and has pretty wide approval so far
… so we would like to accept this PR as a good step forward

Daniel Burnett: normally with PRs we give a 7 day review window, however in this case we need this PR to move forward

Manu Sporny: We have a lot of positive reviews. I could quickly review it in 5 minutes.
… just noting that we have a lot more support for these PRs that we've had before. The editors are happy with them and I'm seeing a lot of alignment.

Daniel Burnett: Can we first see if there are any objections to merging?
… Is there anyone who would object to merging PR 454?

Michael Jones: I would object without some editorial corrections

Daniel Burnett: maybe we should talk about patent policy first

Jonathan Holt: PR 454 is still too abstract

Daniel Burnett: please add that comment to the PR

Ivan Herman: Since that PR puts in writing what was decided and resolved at the F2F. If it faithfully represents the decision at the F2F, then it should be merged.

Amy Guy: +1 what ivan says

Markus Sabadello: +1 to ivan. Note that we can also merge and then make additional improvements afterwards (e.g. regarding terminology).

Daniel Burnett: agrees

Michael Jones: The problem is that the PR does not faithfully reflect what was decided. It deletes the language about unrecognized properties must be ignored.
… If someone can go to the minutes and find the text, I will add that to the PR.

Justin Richer: I agree that this isn't sufficient but it's not meant to be complete yet. Same with the 455

Dave Longley: selfissued, https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Daniel Burnett: thank you, that's good input, we'll return to this shortly
… and the editors can think about how to move forward with that input

Michael Jones: There was an earlier meeting - I think a special topic call - in which we resolved something like "Properties that are not understood MUST be ignored". Can anyone locate that resolution?

Dave Longley: selfissued, in the last meeting we all agreed "ignored" wasn't well defined, so we did this resolution: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Dave Longley: selfissued, that is the language that is in the PR now and it applies to all representations, not just JSON, hence the old confusing "ignored" language has been removed

Michael Jones: I found it: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-03-did#resolution2 : "Unrecognized properties MUST be preserved."

Dave Longley: selfissued, and that is now in 454 in a more explicit way: https://github.com/iherman/minute_processing.json/pull/454/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051R2250-R2255

Dave Longley: selfissued, and it covers all representations.

4. PRs

See github pull request #1.

Justin Richer: a number of the resolutions resulted in two PRs
… 454 adds language about representation syntax that explains why properties for those
… this PR proposes language for the spec that clarifies that
… this PR has resulted in good conversation and has pretty wide approval so far
… so we would like to accept this PR as a good step forward

Daniel Burnett: normally with PRs we give a 7 day review window, however in this case we need this PR to move forward

Manu Sporny: We have a lot of positive reviews. I could quickly review it in 5 minutes.
… just noting that we have a lot more support for these PRs that we've had before. The editors are happy with them and I'm seeing a lot of alignment.

Daniel Burnett: Can we first see if there are any objections to merging?
… Is there anyone who would object to merging PR 454?

Michael Jones: I would object without some editorial corrections

Daniel Burnett: maybe we should talk about patent policy first

Jonathan Holt: PR 454 is still too abstract

Daniel Burnett: please add that comment to the PR

Ivan Herman: Since that PR puts in writing what was decided and resolved at the F2F. If it faithfully represents the decision at the F2F, then it should be merged.

Amy Guy: +1 what ivan says

Markus Sabadello: +1 to ivan. Note that we can also merge and then make additional improvements afterwards (e.g. regarding terminology).

Daniel Burnett: agrees

Michael Jones: The problem is that the PR does not faithfully reflect what was decided. It deletes the language about unrecognized properties must be ignored.
… If someone can go to the minutes and find the text, I will add that to the PR.

Justin Richer: I agree that this isn't sufficient but it's not meant to be complete yet. Same with the 455

Dave Longley: selfissued, https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Daniel Burnett: thank you, that's good input, we'll return to this shortly
… and the editors can think about how to move forward with that input

Michael Jones: There was an earlier meeting - I think a special topic call - in which we resolved something like "Properties that are not understood MUST be ignored". Can anyone locate that resolution?

Dave Longley: selfissued, in the last meeting we all agreed "ignored" wasn't well defined, so we did this resolution: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Dave Longley: selfissued, that is the language that is in the PR now and it applies to all representations, not just JSON, hence the old confusing "ignored" language has been removed

Michael Jones: I found it: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-03-did#resolution2 : "Unrecognized properties MUST be preserved."

Dave Longley: selfissued, and that is now in 454 in a more explicit way: https://github.com/iherman/minute_processing.json/pull/454/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051R2250-R2255

Dave Longley: selfissued, and it covers all representations.

2. PR 407 (Cleanup key representations)

Brent Zundel: w3c/did-core#407

Brent Zundel: PR 407; PR has some review but not a lot
… we're gonna merge it
… bring up any concerns in the PR

4. PRs

See github pull request #1.

Justin Richer: a number of the resolutions resulted in two PRs
… 454 adds language about representation syntax that explains why properties for those
… this PR proposes language for the spec that clarifies that
… this PR has resulted in good conversation and has pretty wide approval so far
… so we would like to accept this PR as a good step forward

Daniel Burnett: normally with PRs we give a 7 day review window, however in this case we need this PR to move forward

Manu Sporny: We have a lot of positive reviews. I could quickly review it in 5 minutes.
… just noting that we have a lot more support for these PRs that we've had before. The editors are happy with them and I'm seeing a lot of alignment.

Daniel Burnett: Can we first see if there are any objections to merging?
… Is there anyone who would object to merging PR 454?

Michael Jones: I would object without some editorial corrections

Daniel Burnett: maybe we should talk about patent policy first

Jonathan Holt: PR 454 is still too abstract

Daniel Burnett: please add that comment to the PR

Ivan Herman: Since that PR puts in writing what was decided and resolved at the F2F. If it faithfully represents the decision at the F2F, then it should be merged.

Amy Guy: +1 what ivan says

Markus Sabadello: +1 to ivan. Note that we can also merge and then make additional improvements afterwards (e.g. regarding terminology).

Daniel Burnett: agrees

Michael Jones: The problem is that the PR does not faithfully reflect what was decided. It deletes the language about unrecognized properties must be ignored.
… If someone can go to the minutes and find the text, I will add that to the PR.

Justin Richer: I agree that this isn't sufficient but it's not meant to be complete yet. Same with the 455

Dave Longley: selfissued, https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Daniel Burnett: thank you, that's good input, we'll return to this shortly
… and the editors can think about how to move forward with that input

Michael Jones: There was an earlier meeting - I think a special topic call - in which we resolved something like "Properties that are not understood MUST be ignored". Can anyone locate that resolution?

Dave Longley: selfissued, in the last meeting we all agreed "ignored" wasn't well defined, so we did this resolution: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Dave Longley: selfissued, that is the language that is in the PR now and it applies to all representations, not just JSON, hence the old confusing "ignored" language has been removed

Michael Jones: I found it: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-03-did#resolution2 : "Unrecognized properties MUST be preserved."

Dave Longley: selfissued, and that is now in 454 in a more explicit way: https://github.com/iherman/minute_processing.json/pull/454/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051R2250-R2255

Dave Longley: selfissued, and it covers all representations.

4. PRs

See github pull request #1.

Justin Richer: a number of the resolutions resulted in two PRs
… 454 adds language about representation syntax that explains why properties for those
… this PR proposes language for the spec that clarifies that
… this PR has resulted in good conversation and has pretty wide approval so far
… so we would like to accept this PR as a good step forward

Daniel Burnett: normally with PRs we give a 7 day review window, however in this case we need this PR to move forward

Manu Sporny: We have a lot of positive reviews. I could quickly review it in 5 minutes.
… just noting that we have a lot more support for these PRs that we've had before. The editors are happy with them and I'm seeing a lot of alignment.

Daniel Burnett: Can we first see if there are any objections to merging?
… Is there anyone who would object to merging PR 454?

Michael Jones: I would object without some editorial corrections

Daniel Burnett: maybe we should talk about patent policy first

Jonathan Holt: PR 454 is still too abstract

Daniel Burnett: please add that comment to the PR

Ivan Herman: Since that PR puts in writing what was decided and resolved at the F2F. If it faithfully represents the decision at the F2F, then it should be merged.

Amy Guy: +1 what ivan says

Markus Sabadello: +1 to ivan. Note that we can also merge and then make additional improvements afterwards (e.g. regarding terminology).

Daniel Burnett: agrees

Michael Jones: The problem is that the PR does not faithfully reflect what was decided. It deletes the language about unrecognized properties must be ignored.
… If someone can go to the minutes and find the text, I will add that to the PR.

Justin Richer: I agree that this isn't sufficient but it's not meant to be complete yet. Same with the 455

Dave Longley: selfissued, https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Daniel Burnett: thank you, that's good input, we'll return to this shortly
… and the editors can think about how to move forward with that input

Michael Jones: There was an earlier meeting - I think a special topic call - in which we resolved something like "Properties that are not understood MUST be ignored". Can anyone locate that resolution?

Dave Longley: selfissued, in the last meeting we all agreed "ignored" wasn't well defined, so we did this resolution: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Dave Longley: selfissued, that is the language that is in the PR now and it applies to all representations, not just JSON, hence the old confusing "ignored" language has been removed

Michael Jones: I found it: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-03-did#resolution2 : "Unrecognized properties MUST be preserved."

Dave Longley: selfissued, and that is now in 454 in a more explicit way: https://github.com/iherman/minute_processing.json/pull/454/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051R2250-R2255

Dave Longley: selfissued, and it covers all representations.

4. PRs

See github pull request #1.

Justin Richer: a number of the resolutions resulted in two PRs
… 454 adds language about representation syntax that explains why properties for those
… this PR proposes language for the spec that clarifies that
… this PR has resulted in good conversation and has pretty wide approval so far
… so we would like to accept this PR as a good step forward

Daniel Burnett: normally with PRs we give a 7 day review window, however in this case we need this PR to move forward

Manu Sporny: We have a lot of positive reviews. I could quickly review it in 5 minutes.
… just noting that we have a lot more support for these PRs that we've had before. The editors are happy with them and I'm seeing a lot of alignment.

Daniel Burnett: Can we first see if there are any objections to merging?
… Is there anyone who would object to merging PR 454?

Michael Jones: I would object without some editorial corrections

Daniel Burnett: maybe we should talk about patent policy first

Jonathan Holt: PR 454 is still too abstract

Daniel Burnett: please add that comment to the PR

Ivan Herman: Since that PR puts in writing what was decided and resolved at the F2F. If it faithfully represents the decision at the F2F, then it should be merged.

Amy Guy: +1 what ivan says

Markus Sabadello: +1 to ivan. Note that we can also merge and then make additional improvements afterwards (e.g. regarding terminology).

Daniel Burnett: agrees

Michael Jones: The problem is that the PR does not faithfully reflect what was decided. It deletes the language about unrecognized properties must be ignored.
… If someone can go to the minutes and find the text, I will add that to the PR.

Justin Richer: I agree that this isn't sufficient but it's not meant to be complete yet. Same with the 455

Dave Longley: selfissued, https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Daniel Burnett: thank you, that's good input, we'll return to this shortly
… and the editors can think about how to move forward with that input

Michael Jones: There was an earlier meeting - I think a special topic call - in which we resolved something like "Properties that are not understood MUST be ignored". Can anyone locate that resolution?

Dave Longley: selfissued, in the last meeting we all agreed "ignored" wasn't well defined, so we did this resolution: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Dave Longley: selfissued, that is the language that is in the PR now and it applies to all representations, not just JSON, hence the old confusing "ignored" language has been removed

Michael Jones: I found it: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-03-did#resolution2 : "Unrecognized properties MUST be preserved."

Dave Longley: selfissued, and that is now in 454 in a more explicit way: https://github.com/iherman/minute_processing.json/pull/454/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051R2250-R2255

Dave Longley: selfissued, and it covers all representations.

4. PRs

See github pull request #1.

Justin Richer: a number of the resolutions resulted in two PRs
… 454 adds language about representation syntax that explains why properties for those
… this PR proposes language for the spec that clarifies that
… this PR has resulted in good conversation and has pretty wide approval so far
… so we would like to accept this PR as a good step forward

Daniel Burnett: normally with PRs we give a 7 day review window, however in this case we need this PR to move forward

Manu Sporny: We have a lot of positive reviews. I could quickly review it in 5 minutes.
… just noting that we have a lot more support for these PRs that we've had before. The editors are happy with them and I'm seeing a lot of alignment.

Daniel Burnett: Can we first see if there are any objections to merging?
… Is there anyone who would object to merging PR 454?

Michael Jones: I would object without some editorial corrections

Daniel Burnett: maybe we should talk about patent policy first

Jonathan Holt: PR 454 is still too abstract

Daniel Burnett: please add that comment to the PR

Ivan Herman: Since that PR puts in writing what was decided and resolved at the F2F. If it faithfully represents the decision at the F2F, then it should be merged.

Amy Guy: +1 what ivan says

Markus Sabadello: +1 to ivan. Note that we can also merge and then make additional improvements afterwards (e.g. regarding terminology).

Daniel Burnett: agrees

Michael Jones: The problem is that the PR does not faithfully reflect what was decided. It deletes the language about unrecognized properties must be ignored.
… If someone can go to the minutes and find the text, I will add that to the PR.

Justin Richer: I agree that this isn't sufficient but it's not meant to be complete yet. Same with the 455

Dave Longley: selfissued, https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Daniel Burnett: thank you, that's good input, we'll return to this shortly
… and the editors can think about how to move forward with that input

Michael Jones: There was an earlier meeting - I think a special topic call - in which we resolved something like "Properties that are not understood MUST be ignored". Can anyone locate that resolution?

Dave Longley: selfissued, in the last meeting we all agreed "ignored" wasn't well defined, so we did this resolution: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Dave Longley: selfissued, that is the language that is in the PR now and it applies to all representations, not just JSON, hence the old confusing "ignored" language has been removed

Michael Jones: I found it: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-03-did#resolution2 : "Unrecognized properties MUST be preserved."

Dave Longley: selfissued, and that is now in 454 in a more explicit way: https://github.com/iherman/minute_processing.json/pull/454/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051R2250-R2255

Dave Longley: selfissued, and it covers all representations.

4. PRs

See github pull request #1.

Justin Richer: a number of the resolutions resulted in two PRs
… 454 adds language about representation syntax that explains why properties for those
… this PR proposes language for the spec that clarifies that
… this PR has resulted in good conversation and has pretty wide approval so far
… so we would like to accept this PR as a good step forward

Daniel Burnett: normally with PRs we give a 7 day review window, however in this case we need this PR to move forward

Manu Sporny: We have a lot of positive reviews. I could quickly review it in 5 minutes.
… just noting that we have a lot more support for these PRs that we've had before. The editors are happy with them and I'm seeing a lot of alignment.

Daniel Burnett: Can we first see if there are any objections to merging?
… Is there anyone who would object to merging PR 454?

Michael Jones: I would object without some editorial corrections

Daniel Burnett: maybe we should talk about patent policy first

Jonathan Holt: PR 454 is still too abstract

Daniel Burnett: please add that comment to the PR

Ivan Herman: Since that PR puts in writing what was decided and resolved at the F2F. If it faithfully represents the decision at the F2F, then it should be merged.

Amy Guy: +1 what ivan says

Markus Sabadello: +1 to ivan. Note that we can also merge and then make additional improvements afterwards (e.g. regarding terminology).

Daniel Burnett: agrees

Michael Jones: The problem is that the PR does not faithfully reflect what was decided. It deletes the language about unrecognized properties must be ignored.
… If someone can go to the minutes and find the text, I will add that to the PR.

Justin Richer: I agree that this isn't sufficient but it's not meant to be complete yet. Same with the 455

Dave Longley: selfissued, https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Daniel Burnett: thank you, that's good input, we'll return to this shortly
… and the editors can think about how to move forward with that input

Michael Jones: There was an earlier meeting - I think a special topic call - in which we resolved something like "Properties that are not understood MUST be ignored". Can anyone locate that resolution?

Dave Longley: selfissued, in the last meeting we all agreed "ignored" wasn't well defined, so we did this resolution: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-05-did#resolution4

Dave Longley: selfissued, that is the language that is in the PR now and it applies to all representations, not just JSON, hence the old confusing "ignored" language has been removed

Michael Jones: I found it: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-11-03-did#resolution2 : "Unrecognized properties MUST be preserved."

Dave Longley: selfissued, and that is now in 454 in a more explicit way: https://github.com/iherman/minute_processing.json/pull/454/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051R2250-R2255

Dave Longley: selfissued, and it covers all representations.