@silverpill i guess it does? it depends on whether comments are sent to context.attributedTo or not.

@silverpill in any case if i had to describe "compliance levels" then it would be something like:

0: does not use context (mastodon)
1: uses non-dereferenceable context (pleroma)
2.1: context resolves to a collection representing the conversation (streams?)
2.2: context has attributedTo and participating objects are sent to this actor

so all it would take for streams to be 2.2 compliant is for their "conversation containers" to be sent to `context.attributedTo` instead of `target.attributedTo`

@silverpill reading through the "conversation containers" doc at https://codeberg.org/streams/streams/src/branch/release/doc/develop/en/Containers.mc i have the following comments

- the notion of a "top level post" is kinda redundant with the context, and its definition as "without inReplyTo" can be problematic if your "top-level post" is actually a reply to something. imagine an article inReplyTo something, but with its own context

- "the conversation owner (target->attributedTo)" seems to confirm not 2.2...

@silverpill cc @mikedev for posterity. also the swicg threaded discussions task force (hi @julian and @angus) is looking at this from a forum perspective and not just a social media perspective. it is quite likely they will arrive at a similar finding in their report

@trwnh@mastodon.social something @angus@socialhub.activitypub.rocks and I were discussing was that some implementations include OP in the Page/context (iirc Lemmy does this @nutomic@lemmy.ml), and subsequent replies are Notes, whereas NodeBB, Discourse, and later Flarum, treat the context as merely a container.

It seems the latter fits better with the vision of 7888 but I'm not sure whether concessions need to be made for those other types.

@julian @angus @nutomic i'm not sure what exactly you mean, but the exact types don't really matter (and shouldn't matter). for `context` you would just match against the id. after grouping by context, you are free to present in whichever way you want -- you can present in a flat chronological list, or in a nested reply tree sorted by some algorithmic scoring, it's all the same.

@trwnh @julian @angus @nutomic the `inReplyTo` property and `replies` collection give you what you need to build a tree structure.

@evan @julian @angus @nutomic yeah, i'm just saying that crawling the tree is optional if you already have context. pleroma for example presents things in a flat chronological list, like an imageboard.

example: post 3 is a reply to post 1, it has replies in posts 4 5 and 87. post 6 is in reply to post 2. there's an option to show the tree as indentation. if that option is disabled, you see posts in order 1 2 3 4 5 ... 87. if that option is enabled you see posts in order 1 2 6 3 4 5 87 and so on

@evan @julian @angus @nutomic similarly, a chat app might not have `inReplyTo` on every single message. in fact, the vast majority of chat messages probably won't have `inReplyTo`. in this case, building a tree would fail spectacularly. all the chat messages are grouped together by the context of being in the same room, not by being in a reply tree. the reply is just metadata, like in discord or indieweb reply-contexts or the old youtube "video replies" feature.

@evan @julian @angus @nutomic similarly, a chat app might not have `inReplyTo` on every single message. in fact, the vast majority of chat messages probably won't have `inReplyTo`. in this case, building a tree would fail spectacularly. all the chat messages are grouped together by the context of being in the same room, not by being in a reply tree. the reply is just metadata, like in discord or indieweb reply-contexts or the old youtube "video replies" feature.

@trwnh @julian @angus @nutomic I think you'd need to reify the room as a `Group`, not leave it in `context`.

@evan @julian @angus @nutomic i dont see why you would. there can be multiple rooms/channels in a guild/server/group. just like there can be multiple topics in a forum category.