@julian I'd lean towards activities, because it's a lot easier to remove data you don't care about, than to reinvent data that you do care about but never received.
fentiger@mastodon.social
Posts
-
How do we handle Groups (Reconciling FEP-400e and FEP-1b12)? -
@helge Is it really an ActivityPub working group? I don't see anything ActivityPub-specific in either the summary or the list of participants.@helge Is it really an ActivityPub working group? I don't see anything ActivityPub-specific in either the summary or the list of participants.
I mean, I can see how this would be relevant to ActivityPub, but as a lower layer that it rests on, rather than directly.
-
`Update(Note)` quirk@julian This is exactly my point 1 from here: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/desired-changes-for-a-future-revision-of-activitypub-and-activitystreams/4534/10
My opinion is that this should actually be the standardised behaviour.
-
Am wondering if it'd make sense to have a dedicated Reply activity, such that a reply becomes Reply(Note) instead of Create(Note)@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).
-
Am wondering if it'd make sense to have a dedicated Reply activity, such that a reply becomes Reply(Note) instead of Create(Note)@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...