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.

  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    j12t@j12t.social was this from cwebber@social.coop's blog post about the activitypub.rocks website? If so, I was similarly surprised! I thought my ideas about utilizing OAuth2 plus the activitypub API were fairly novel ... I guess it's just a simple case of convergent evolution
  • How much can I extend an OrderedCollection?

    ActivityPub activitypub
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Why does #activitypub not have quote posts

    Uncategorized activitypub
    3
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    kariboka@social.harpia.red fox@social.hostnetwork.xyz but fwiw Mastodon now has quote posts.
  • 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
  • Idle thought re: account delegation

    ActivityPub activitypub c2s
    6
    0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    38 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
    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
  • Test Post for @julian

    Uncategorized activitypub
    3
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    127 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Uups, next try https://nrw.social/deck/@FrankM/113606591981853331