Skip to content

As someone who has developed several #ActivityPub software implementations ([Fedify], [Hollo], [BotKit], and [Hackers' Pub]), I believe one of the most frustrating features to implement in the #fediverse is #custom_emoji.

Uncategorized
43 9 69

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    occultist8128@infosec.pub "followers only" is a concept that is Mastodon specific, and Pixelfed supports it. There's nothing to change at the protocol level itself. Sending the reply to OP in your example would be a betrayal of the visibility of followers only... which is kind of silly but technically correct. Better would be followers + participants, but that's up to the individual implementors to adopt.
  • Idle thought re: account delegation

    ActivityPub activitypub c2s
    6
    0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    evan@cosocial.ca that's cool, so hopefully I'll have something to test against besides another NodeBB server
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    lucas3d@mastodon.social that looks fun! Was it just a social event?
  • Why is data congregation so hard on Mastodon?

    Fediverse fediverse
    9
    0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    39 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Thanks! It's something that I personally feel is more performant and future proof for other important things like private discussions (which Mastodon also doesn't support natively yet — mention spamming doesn't count.)
  • Unicode in handles

    ActivityPub unicode activitypub
    15
    0 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    143 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    לאצי the usernames work fine locally (that is, on the site itself). It's when interoperating with other sites not running NodeBB where there are issues, it seems
  • 0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    82 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    I suppose you're right in a way. The context owner is not supposed to be set by someone other than the context owner. It's a fallback mechanism intended for better compatibility with Mastodon. When a group is addressed and it is one of the local NodeBB categories, it will assume control If it is another group that it knows about but isn't same origin to the author, then no category is assumed.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    174 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Hey rimu@piefed.social thanks for responding (and sorry for the late reply!) I am not married to the Announce([Article|Note|Page]) approach, so I am definitely open to Create([Article|Note|Page]) with a back-reference. I think I went the former direction because there is a known fallback mechanism — the Announce is treated as a share/boost/repost as normal. However, sending the Create also is fine I think. However, do we need a backreference? In my limited research, it seems that Piefed, et al. picks the first Group actor and associates the post with that community. If I sent over a Create(Article) with two Group actors addressed, could Piefed associate the post with the first, and initiate a cross-post with the remaining Group actors? Secondly, is how to handle sync. 1b12 relies on communities having reciprocal followers in order for two-way synchronization to be established. On my end since I know it is cross-posted I will now send 1b12 activities to cross-posted communities, but can Piefed, et al. send 1b12 activities back as well, in the absence of followers? cc andrew_s@piefed.social nutomic@lemmy.ml melroy@kbin.melroy.org bentigorlich@gehirneimer.de
  • ActivityPub for forums looks neat!

    Uncategorized activitypub federation discourse fediverse
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    66 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    NodeBB is gearing up for a major release this month that brings full two way federation and content discoverability to forums as well! We've been working on it all last year! @activitypub