@thisismissem Maybe it would, if it was the only construct they had to deal with.
ActivityPub Test Kategorie
9
Beiträge
4
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
@thisismissem Maybe it would, if it was the only construct they had to deal with.
If they have to work with a range of other implementations, some which support Reply(Note) and others which only accept Create(Note), then IMHO it'll just muddy the waters.
The joys of backwards compatibility...
-
@thisismissem Maybe it would, if it was the only construct they had to deal with.
If they have to work with a range of other implementations, some which support Reply(Note) and others which only accept Create(Note), then IMHO it'll just muddy the waters.
The joys of backwards compatibility...
@FenTiger was specifically thinking Reply(Note) would be used in combination with inbox forwarding, so you'd only address it to the replied to server, but the note would have the broadcast addressing
-
@FenTiger was specifically thinking Reply(Note) would be used in combination with inbox forwarding, so you'd only address it to the replied to server, but the note would have the broadcast addressing
@thisismissem Well, if you mean that replies get sent back to the thread's originator at first and then distributed more widely from there - yes, I think this would be much clearer.
It would also allow the originator to enforce various policies (signature scheme permitting).
-
@thisismissem Well, if you mean that replies get sent back to the thread's originator at first and then distributed more widely from there - yes, I think this would be much clearer.
It would also allow the originator to enforce various policies (signature scheme permitting).
Tried to get a constrained conversation model into ActivityPub for over a decade. Finally settled on this:
https://fediversity.site/help/develop/en/Containers
I didn't create an FEP specifically for this because it's just a minor tweak to a couple of existing FEPs.
This provides a mechanism to easily implement reply controls, moderation, groups, private groups, conversation completion, relayed deliveries, circles and much more. And it's all generic ActivityPub and co-exists with microblog software. I added a little indicator in the UI so you can see at a glance if the conversation you're participating in is safe or not. -
Tried to get a constrained conversation model into ActivityPub for over a decade. Finally settled on this:
https://fediversity.site/help/develop/en/Containers
I didn't create an FEP specifically for this because it's just a minor tweak to a couple of existing FEPs.
This provides a mechanism to easily implement reply controls, moderation, groups, private groups, conversation completion, relayed deliveries, circles and much more. And it's all generic ActivityPub and co-exists with microblog software. I added a little indicator in the UI so you can see at a glance if the conversation you're participating in is safe or not. -
I don't mind.
-
I don't mind.
@mikedev draft: https://codeberg.org/silverpill/feps/src/branch/main/171b/fep-171b.md
It is based on the original text, but I added several clarifications, and also some new requirements:
- Compatibility with FEP-7888
- The recommended type of collection isContext
- Using FEP-c7d3 framework for authenticationBut it still should be compatible with your implementation. If it will diverge in the future, I'll pick a different name
-
@mikedev draft: https://codeberg.org/silverpill/feps/src/branch/main/171b/fep-171b.md
It is based on the original text, but I added several clarifications, and also some new requirements:
- Compatibility with FEP-7888
- The recommended type of collection isContext
- Using FEP-c7d3 framework for authenticationBut it still should be compatible with your implementation. If it will diverge in the future, I'll pick a different name
I can foresee a lot of confusion over the mingling of '@context', 'context', and 'Context'. Do you have a recommended LD namespace for the latter, and should it be a type with multiple properties (['OrderedCollection', 'Context'])? It wasn't obvious from the document.
Otherwise that looks good. -
I can foresee a lot of confusion over the mingling of '@context', 'context', and 'Context'. Do you have a recommended LD namespace for the latter, and should it be a type with multiple properties (['OrderedCollection', 'Context'])? It wasn't obvious from the document.
Otherwise that looks good.I would prefer to use a single type, but
['OrderedCollection', 'Context']is also an option. The type will be defined in w3id.org/fep namespace with full URI beinghttps://w3id.org/fep/171b/Context(assuming this idea survives the community review)
