Minutes from 3 October 2024 WG Meeting
-
erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.netreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh @julian (For people following along: I did a quote post experiemnt branching off form here that it seems NodeBB dropped on the floor)
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to thisismissem@hachyderm.io last edited by
@thisismissem @julian @erincandescent for Migrate, or Move? i think Migrate might not get much traction so idk if it's worth writing it up, and as for Move i think it makes sense for a FEP building off of the work of the forum TF or maybe even their final CG report. (there's a very skeletonized draft of fep-9988 "federated forums" still on my laptop, which was abandoned more or less when the forum TF was launched)
-
thisismissem@hachyderm.ioreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh @julian @erincandescent there is already a Move for migration FEP
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @julian @darius this reminds me i was going to write a FEP for addressing to signal when you should use to/cc/audience based on some archaeology i did https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/overlapping-taxonomies-and-the-audience-property/4229/8
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to thisismissem@hachyderm.io last edited by
@thisismissem @julian @erincandescent yeah, and it mostly describes existing practices rather than proposing any particular path forward
in any case i think the whole "migration" flow right now suffers from some poor semantics all around, and is actually one of the reasons we can't have nice things (proper support for alsoKnownAs instead of using it as a glorified rel-me)
so maybe i *will* write up a FEP anyway, even if no one implements it at least it would be recorded as a potential approach
-
erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.netreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh @thisismissem @julian For all that the current use of as:alsoKnownAs disagrees with its definition… I’m not sure that’s a problem (except for the need to amend the spec)
We have reasonably straightfoward ways to indicate “This is also me” (alsoKnownAs) vs “This is an exact alias for me” (xrd:alias)
-
@julian @erincandescent @darius right, so Lemmy basically forces you to start one level higher and then work your way down, on top of all the reply-tree reconstruction you're expected to do from one big outbox haystack
it reminds me of how we should actually try to flesh out the concept of Group actors and maybe alongside it the concept of a Forum (bc they're not the same to me, there are differences that need to be called out)
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @julian @thisismissem well the real problem is it has undefined implicit "real-world" usage in fedi... and then separately the DID WG tried to (re?)define it in DID Core. but there's already stuff out there in DID world that uses alsoKnownAs the way it's defined in DID Core!
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@thisismissem @julian @erincandescent after some slight reconsideration i think i might hold off on a FEP because the bigger issue with migration and a so-called Migrate activity is that what i should *really* be doing is accounting for multihoming. in that sense, Migrate might not make too much sense. anyway i'm moving it to the "requires further thought" section of my todoist list
-
evan@cosocial.careplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @julian @darius it's covered in the doc, which is free to read!
-
erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.netreplied to evan@cosocial.ca last edited by
-
evan@cosocial.careplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @julian @darius you can also file an issue here:
-
darius@friend.campreplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @julian @evan it does mention the @context name collision which is imo a real point of confusion
-
evan@cosocial.careplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @julian @darius great. You can definitely use both.
`context` is fine for any kind of grouping of objects, as is noted in AV.
If you want to specifically talk about a conversation tree, a more specific property is better.
-
evan@cosocial.careplied to evan@cosocial.ca last edited by
@erincandescent @julian @darius finally, if you'd like to talk to me as part of the Threads TF or even as part of the FEP process, where there's a code of conduct, I'd appreciate it if you dial back your derisive tone. It's not OK to talk to me or anybody else working on AP that way.
-
erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.netreplied to evan@cosocial.ca last edited by
-
evan@cosocial.careplied to evan@cosocial.ca last edited by
@erincandescent @julian @darius I think the best followup might be commenting on the PR or filing an issue on Codeberg.
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to darius@friend.camp last edited by
@darius @erincandescent @julian @evan well, the json-ld keyword has an @ in front of it for a reason: https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#syntax-tokens-and-keywords
id and type got aliased but they're really supposed to be @\id and @\type: https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/232
other point of confusion re: @\context vs context was overruled: https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/238
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@darius @erincandescent @julian @evan there was probably a time when `context` could've gotten renamed in the same way that `scope` was renamed to `audience`, but we're about 10 years too late on that discussion
-
erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.netreplied to evan@cosocial.ca last edited by