Am wondering if it'd make sense to have a dedicated Reply activity, such that a reply becomes Reply(Note) instead of Create(Note)
-
fentiger@mastodon.socialreplied to thisismissem@hachyderm.io on last edited by
@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@hachyderm.ioreplied to fentiger@mastodon.social on last edited by
@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@mastodon.socialreplied to thisismissem@hachyderm.io on last edited by
@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).
-
mikedev@fediversity.sitereplied to fentiger@mastodon.social on last edited byTried 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. -
julian@community.nodebb.orgreplied to thisismissem@hachyderm.io on last edited by
@thisismissem@hachyderm.io there's no functional difference though no? I think @trwnh@mastodon.social's 7888 already discusses that flow and it works ok with Create...
-
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to julian@community.nodebb.org on last edited by
@julian @thisismissem also https://w3id.org/fep/7458 covers usage of the replies collection, with similar logic
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to thisismissem@hachyderm.io on last edited by
@thisismissem @julian the one potential advantage of having a dedicated Reply activity is that it allows for quick pattern-matching at the activity level (similar to Like/Announce), but it comes at a semantic cost of reifying replies as an activity rather than as metadata or as a link relation. which i don't think they should be dedicated activities.
-
thisismissem@hachyderm.ioreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social on last edited by
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to thisismissem@hachyderm.io on last edited by
@thisismissem @julian that can be done with any activity
-
-
mikedev@fediversity.sitereplied to silverpill@mitra.social on last edited byI 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@fediversity.sitereplied to silverpill@mitra.social last edited byI 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.