@darius @djsundog this does require an understanding of `context` as “put this thing in a different grouping”, yes.

ie if someone declared inReplyTo + a different context, and Mastodon saw it and ignored context, it would look like a “regular reply”. but that doesn’t change the fact that it is what it is.

@trwnh

ISTM that the critical distinction is expectation of responses.

If I *reply* to a post, I am directing my speech at the original poster. Others may see, but it is understood that I am speaking TO the poster.

If I *quote post*, I am directing my speech to *my followers* generally, and adding some information or context to it. The message might be seen by the original poster, but I am not speaking to them, and they should feel no reason to reply.

A rather subtle matter of intent.

@trwnh @tech_himbo I feel like it could easily be an `attachment`, especially since that can hold many objects (useful for e.g. an `Article` that quotes many different objects).

Overall, I think it's just embedding a full object inside another. But I assume a new property saying "this is a quote" for the UI would be necessary.

@djsundog @darius right, i share the feeling that it is presentational and functional, not semantic. in other words, saying “A isQuoteOf B” doesn’t have a meaningful definition for “isQuoteOf” as a singular thing.

At the protocol level as a descriptive framework we have {context audience to cc attachment tag inReplyTo} and i am skeptical we need “quoteOf”. but i’m trying to cast around for other takes before committing to that.

@joelving That it does, but what is the *value* of the rel?

@trwnh @djsundog I think "new `context` plus include the Object as an `attachment` and leave the rest up to implementers" is probably minimally sufficient. But I don't... trust implementers to interpret it well I guess?? Maybe that's a "me" problem

@trwnh I'm not sure I understand your questions, but I'll try to answer.

I think the quoting post is dependent upon the quoted post, but it may be a weak dependency -- that is, the quoting post may still be meaningful if the quoted post is inaccessible.

I'm guessing in your second question you're asking about features of the ActivityPub protocol, and I don't know how to answer that.

@chris_radcliff so this is sounding like a kind of `attachment` then

@trwnh @djsundog like I think the more efficient and minimal your protocol is the more likely your intent is going to be lost. I don't love a verbose protocol but sometimes it's a balm in a world where communication and documentation are unlikely to happen

@darius @trwnh i mean call me when it's implemented somewhere very far away from me and we can dissect that once we have some samples back from the wild i guess but basically i don't trust people who want to spend time and resources on making "look at this piece of shit" easier to do. the milk smells bad ok i don't need to smell it. it's bad

@trwnh embed, preview, link or similar if you want to drive behavior. If you want semantics, then the list from earlier: reply, review, see also, example, and so on in an open-ended list of possibilities. The last one will almost certainly lead to more whack-a-mole driven development.

@t54r4n1 @darius what about people who want to make it easier to describe so that you can more easily ignore it

@TerryHancock this feels like a function of context and audience, then. what about the link itself?

@matt @tech_himbo is it really necessary though?

i think if we’re going to define such a property then it needs to have a clear definition, and so far from all the responses i’m not getting an answer that isn’t anchored in something else like audience or context.

@trwnh Context is a powerful word. Someone making a dad joke and someone calling in trolls are both changing the context.

I can't think of a more powerful word, so...

@darius @djsundog so… a singular “quoteOf” is likely to be misinterpreted? not sure i get what you’re saying.

if we’re skipping to the end, i am personally of the opinion that maybe there should be a Quote activity. but i am also wondering if that implies that there could also be a Reply activity. at least from a side effects processing perspective it could make sense — “yo, add this to the collection” in the same way we have Like and Announce as separate activities.

@foolishowl okay, that helps a bit. mostly i am trying to figure out how to describe (from a knowledge standpoint) what that “dependency” is.

like if i said “A isQuoteOf B”, how would one define “isQuoteOf”? does a meaningful definition actually exist or not? it is seeming like “not”. a “quote post” is more a function of context, audience, notification, link preview… but it’s not clear where to actually put the link itself.

@joelving for semantic purposes, we refer to the Object as “inReplyTo”, “reviewOf”, “seeAlso”, etc. This is generally equivalent to having Link rel=inReplyTo and so on.

functionally, we need a place to put the Link, if going with a Link. perhaps attachment or tag — those two properties are a sort of grab-bag of generic Links at times.

@trwnh I’m not a web developer or anything so I can’t exactly speak to the HTML equivalent, but yes, it does look like this indented format in my mind. But it doubles as a “citation” because someone reading my post can tap in to the original post to get the full context (analogous to how one might go hunt down the primary source when reading material that quote/cite from it).

@trwnh @tech_himbo hah maybe not! I'm sure there's a clever way to combine existing properties and indicate "this is a quote post". But I can also imagine this making things more convoluted for implementers than just using a new attribute.

I also think there will be large UI / display differences across different content types, e.g. short Note vs long Article. So a new attribute might be too limited to cover all cases (like multiple embedded quotes).