6 months ago
ActivityPub is a new standard that has been defined by the Social Web Working Group of the W3C.
11 people like this
Paul Gehrke, Hypolite Petovan, Montag, Steffen K9 🐰, Ulf Rompe relocated to firstpost.de, JollyOrc, hoergen on Friendica, Markus, Mario Vavti, Hank G and Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) like this.
Michael Vogel likes this.
Most current implementers have integrated Webfinger for that purpose, since users like to work with handles rather than URLs. So although not explicitly specified, this is a fine solution for the problem.
Dennis says that it isn’t defined that you have to use authentication when pulling non-public content. But: It is surely a bug when someone wouldn’t do so, and in fact all systems that I have tested, are acting that way or prohibiting access to all non-public content.
“aspects” Diaspora uses so-called “aspects” which are collections of persons that have a relationship with the respective user. When creating a post to such an “aspect”, in ActivityPub you would simply collect the list of persons in that aspect and direct the post to their inboxes. (Optionally -
“aspects” Diaspora uses so-called “aspects” which are collections of persons that have a relationship with the respective user. When creating a post to such an “aspect”, in ActivityPub you would simply collect the list of persons in that aspect and direct the post to their inboxes. (Optionally - when you don't want to send the content to each personal inbox, but you want to use the shared inboxes - you have to add the receivers to the “to” and “cc” fields).
Private messaging Since implementers from Pleroma and Mastodon already realised that the original specification is missing this important part, I expect some agreement in the future that other implementers will adopt, in the sense of interoperability as well.
What to use? “Article”, “Document” or “Note”? Since Diaspora doesn’t know a title field at all, I would suggest sending “Note” in any case.
I wrote an answer to Dennis post https://schub.io/blog/2018/02/01/a...
Instead, the comments will be distributed by the commenting persons to all persons that are in the “to” and “cc” fields of all posts in that thread
This concept is followed in Friendica’s implementation. The distribution of signed posts via the thread starter is done in Mastodon as well.
I think you’ve got it backwards, @Deus Figendi. The point of @Michael Vogel was to explain that what was already done with the Diaspora protocol can also be done with ActivityPub.
2 people like this
utzer and 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 like this.
alsternerd 🤷🏼♀️ and HankG like this.
Jeremy likes this.
I think that we need some kind of board where implementers can discuss about how to implement specific things.
instead of trying to find ways to do it inside the frederation/fediverseWell, the #Fediverse is fractured into different parts, #Mastodon users (programmers) could then not communicated with #Diaspora users. #Github got kind of evil because of #Microsoft …
instead of trying to find ways to do it inside the frederation/fediverse
For me it’s kinda strange that any coder of the federation-fediverse hasn’t an account with any of the competetive but befriended projects.