@darius @trwnh I think a client that recognized an activitypub embed, dereferenced it, saw it was a reply, and included a "via" link to the top of thread activitypub object could be pretty neat! I'd probably really enjoy having that contextual clue that the quoted bit is part of a larger picture regardless of the intent of the person quoting it. but I really feel like this is all presentation not protocol.

@agnes so it’s a kind of citation? like how you might use <blockquote cite=“”> in HTML or is it a different kind of citation.

if i had A and B and i said “A isQuoteOf B”, is there a meaningful definition for “isQuoteOf” or is it instead a combination of other factors (context, audience, response, and so on)

@tante “commentary” or “response” seem to be the closest things here. but the rest of it is expressible via different existing properties — audience and context in particular.

@tech_himbo in the case of a boost we instead describe the action of Announcing the existence of the object. if you were to Endorse a post then that makes sense as a separate activity.

alternatively from a different perspective: you could represent not the act itself, but the relation or property. generically you might have an Annotation framework where the purpose of the anno is “endorsement”.

Just like we have `inReplyTo` right now, we might similarly notify the author that we have Reply’d.

@trwnh huh, never seen such an implementation

@t54r4n1 @trwnh yeah there's a "comment below the quote" proposal I looked at recently that actually feels like a decent compromise

@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.