Skip to content

Recently there has been a lot of discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol which has been quite dividing and heated.

Uncategorized
67 18 0

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • Progress update for Conversational Contexts

    Uncategorized activitypub backfill forumwg
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    gyptazy@mastodon.gyptazy.com it's the kind of relay Pleroma uses, that's why I asked.
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    abraham@indieweb.social and they say ActivityPub is too technical ...
  • Long-form articles

    Uncategorized activitypub
    21
    0 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    65 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    feb@loma.ml well the great thing is the FEP is still a draft and your opinions are welcome cc jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.eu silverpill@mitra.social
  • 0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    silverpill@mitra.social there was! I am very bad with putting together minutes but I will put some together tomorrow (hopefully) For cross posting essentially I outlined how Piefed does it, and how NodeBB hopes to do it differently, but there are some moderation concerns. Will elaborate more in the minutes.
  • 0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    128 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
    229 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
  • Blogtastisch: 2. Blogs und das Fediverse

    notizBlog activitypub blogs fediblog fediverse weblogs
    17
    1
    0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    261 Aufrufe
    caromite@troet.cafeC
    @pfefferle Wow, danke für das super Video! Für mich ist das Fediverse noch ganz neu, hab jetzt mein Blog föderiert und mir einen Account bei Mastodon erstellt. Fühle mich noch etwas verloren, aber bin überzeugt auf dem richtigen Weg zu sein