Skip to content

I'm beginning to understand why there are so few blogging platforms that work with #activitypub.

Uncategorized
2 2 0

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    benpate@mastodon.social agreed! It's a great document that is paving the way toward better long form text support on fedi. That it has buy-in from Mastodon is the missing piece that other attempts lack.
  • 0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    50 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    trwnh@mastodon.social but as:Public is not a dereferenceable URL. Needs to be special cased anyway. End of the day nothing changes, it needs special handling for all the cases anyway. cc silverpill@mitra.social
  • 0 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    59 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    renchap@oisaur.com edent@mastodon.social as it should, as the followers collection can be gamed and should not be trusted.
  • Should I present a topic at FediCon?

    Uncategorized fedicon activitypub fosdem
    3
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    rwg@aoir.social I'm not actually sure! You'll have to ask reiver@mastodon.social about that one. Let me know too!
  • Fun with Federation: Lemmy edition

    ActivityPub nodebb lemmy activitypub
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    nutomic@lemmy.ml let me know if I got any of the details wrong. Much thanks to your team for the assist in debugging!
  • 0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    64 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
    151 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
    83 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Uups, next try https://nrw.social/deck/@FrankM/113606591981853331