Skip to content

NodeBB v4.0.0 — Federate good times, come on!

Uncategorized
116 66 934

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    deadsuperhero@social.wedistribute.org I'm of the opinion that a solid collection of links is the easiest way to get there. FediDevs set out to do that but I think the best approach would be to update ActivityPub.rocks with the links and docs instead. Join the WG for it!! Led by evan@cosocial.ca and j12t@j12t.social
  • FEP-9098: Custom emojis has been published.

    Uncategorized activitypub fep
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    silverpill@mitra.social I thought the plural of Emoji was Emoji
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • What resources would you recommend for getting into #activitypub

    Uncategorized activitypub
    3
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    douginamug@mastodon.xyz this entire series right here https://seb.jambor.dev/posts/understanding-activitypub/
  • Unicode in handles

    ActivityPub unicode activitypub
    15
    0 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    142 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
    79 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
    169 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
  • 0 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Paweł said in Native Push Notifications Support for NodeBB: > julian maybe it is worth to check this behavior in Browserstack? Yes, this is a good idea does browser stack have support for push notifications?