@katka yes

@Patricia it is indeed a big problem. i wish i had an easier answer.

@helge https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/tootctl/#accounts-rotate

@julian another update to clarify the "base case" where `context` doesn't resolve to a collection: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/pulls/439

@jarno I liked elest.ioYou do need some slight technology knowledge but not nearly as much as running one from scratch.

@erincandescent @trwnh @evan @jenniferplusplus @mikedev @scott @julian @trwnhThe name of the property could be different, but I think it is useful to have two collections:- "Thread" is easier to implement, and in any case, software needs to keep track of reply trees, one way or another.- "Context" is a bonus. It contains everything related to a conversation, including reactions and edits. Some applications may not need it, and for some it might be difficult to implement, so it should be optional.My estimation is that implementation of "Context" + "Thread" will require roughly the same amount of effort as implementation of "Context" alone, so for those who want "Context" this separation should not be a problem. If software doesn't keep track of activities it can provide empty "Context", but their Add activities should nevertheless have it in target. Perhaps in the following form:"target": { "type": "Context", "id": "<context-collection>", "attributedTo": "<conversation-owner>", "thread": "<thread-collection>" }

@mro @naturzukunft @steve https://w3c-ccg.github.io/security-vocab/#owneryes this is an old draft from 2 years ago when the "security vocab" was still under the credentials community group (ccg) instead of the verifiable credentials working group (vcwg)