Kingsley Idehen

@csarven, Yes re fallback suggestion. As for precedence, bearing in mind the privacy and acls orientation of Solid, the private inbox would be the default. That way folks won't accidentally...

That's what's happening to me when attempt to make a review that should end up in my inbox. Note the 401 and issue with Link Header.

Here a more specific example whereby I was already logged into dokie.li and my save attempt fails. Here a repeat after I log out and back in, which is more...

@csarven , Scenario to leads to the save failure on my end: 1. Interact with some doc via dokie.li extension 2. Go about my normal business 3. Stumble across a...

> I’m confused. In [#220 (review)](https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/pull/220#pullrequestreview-389804068) and many others, there were day-long discussions on how 0.7 cannot be changed. So what better guarantee than to archive this repository? Then 0.7...

> > When you archive a repo are you not changing its nature? > > We're discussing on two levels here 🙂 > > The repeated question has been to...

> In github it is possible to [create issue templates](https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/configuring-issue-templates-for-your-repository#creating-issue-templates) in order to guide a user in how to express an issue > > There was [concern expressed](https://github.com/solid/process/issues/198#issue-612599160) about confusion...

> @kidehen > > > The suggestion above should solve the problem that's underlying this thread. IMHO. > > The problem underlying this thread is - _this repository is no...

> Feature requests is out of scope of 0.7. They belong in the solid/specification repository. > > New issues can only be about erratas to the 0.7 spec. Okay, and...

> Let's be very clear here. What you and @melvincarvalho are proposing is to fork the Solid project and community. > > This by itself is totally fine. Forking is...