@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.

@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.