Skip to content

Unicode in handles

ActivityPub
15 6 151

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • hi folks

    Uncategorized activitypub golang
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    No better place to talk ActivityPub than the fediverse! evan@cosocial.ca radhitya@pl.100indie.org reiver@mastodon.social
  • Idle thought re: account delegation

    ActivityPub activitypub c2s
    6
    0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    19 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
    1 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Fun with Federation: Lemmy edition

    ActivityPub nodebb lemmy activitypub
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    47 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
    103 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.
  • Pleroma Webfinger compatibility

    ActivityPub activitypub pleroma webfinger
    10
    0 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    115 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    trwnh@mastodon.social before, I was not sending Accept at all, now I am sending application/jrd+json.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    188 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
    2 Beiträge
    99 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Kommt echt an Ich bin verblüfft LOL