NodeBB-ActivityPub Bridge Test Instance

thisismissem:This sounds like a wonderful FEP! This article published two weeks ago mentions the issue (highlight mine) ..Another example I personally encountered was a frustrating issue while implementing ActivityPub for this blog: updating a post propagated to Lemmy but not Mastodon. Despite the Update activity being accepted, Mastodon silently rejected it unless the updated timestamp changed—a logical but unofficial requirement. Developers must track down subtle implementation details that aren't formally documented, significantly complicating adoption and usage.https://chrastecky.dev/technology/activity-pub-the-good-the-bad-and-the-uglyI'd write it off as a Mastodon-ism, but it's actually better to have that property present, so now it is.So one that's becoming de-facto standard. Ideally if Mastodon introduces such logic, it is up to them to remember to inform the broader developer community via a FEP.---Aside: "If all we have is a Note .. "Overall it is such a pity that everything is to be a Note or else.. And the default pragmatic urge of most devs is to assign app-specific business logic to an existing or custom property within it, to create all the behavioral flavors. And then call it a day "my app works" and throw the protocol decay out in the ecosystem.There are other improvements regarding revision control as long-time open issues, see e.g. @trwnh's https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/exposing-edit-history-via-activitystreams/2930 (mastodon issue # dd. January 2023). In this issue @stevebate suggests previousversions from the ForgeFed Vocabulary.What do we do when we "Edit a Note"? Is using the CRUD of ActivityStreams really the best option, or are we really "Creating a Revision". Shouldn't ActivityPub have a proper way to Revision Control across the board?If my new Fediverse app included both editable and non-editable posts, how I'd hack that in on top of the current mechanism? Just pondering this. It seems we go out of our way not to use the extension mechanism of ActivityPub as it was intended to be used, cramming everything in NoteCrud​. Is that official best-practice for the future fediverse now, I wonder.Many more examples seen in discussions. The ActivityPub specs state that you may ditch JSON-LD for plain JSON, but doesn't say that the whole idea of a semantic type model should be thrown out of the window as well. In https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/distinguish-between-posts-and-direct-messages/2283 the example is people going out of their way not to define ChatMessage in favor of Note + property-logic.

@unexpectedteapot Thank you. Indeed I missed that distinction, sorry for the noise @hongminhee.

omega Honestly, I don't think the basics of federation are that big of a problem for people. The idea is simple enough, it's just that it's kind of unthinkable for most folks in the current internet paradigm. "Imagine if you could follow stuff on Twitter, and talk to Twitter users, from Facebook". That captures the whole promise. The whole idea. And it's aided by the fact that Facebook and Twitter are so very obviously different things. Different companies. Different websites. Different apps. Different services. They look different, they're labelled different, their apps are different, etc. And it would be understandable that if they did communicate between them, that there might be some rough edges. Now look at mastodon.social, mstdn.social, and mstdn.ca. They look the same. Try lemmy.ml, lemm.ee, and startrek.website. They look the same. The fediverse has adopted "make every website look like a dumb terminal" as a design aesthetic, and "the website you use doesn't matter" as a recruitment philosophy. And it just doesn't work.

@julian @Fitik Still faster than a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. Congrats!