Skip to content

Mastodon could really use tombstone placeholders when a reply is deleted so the tree/chain isn't broken or orphaned.

Uncategorized
2 2 0

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • Idle thought re: account delegation

    ActivityPub activitypub c2s
    6
    0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    evan@cosocial.ca that's cool, so hopefully I'll have something to test against besides another NodeBB server
  • What drew you to ActivityPub?

    ActivityPub activitypub dotsocial blogs
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    > Getting a critical mass of people to create yet another account was always a major obstacle. I see and have experienced this effect time and time again, and we're getting closer and closer to the point where the protocol implementations can abstract away the messy bits. Gaining critical mass among devs is the first step!
  • Unicode in handles

    ActivityPub unicode activitypub
    15
    0 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    158 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
    116 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
    124 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
    193 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
  • 1 Stimmen
    116 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @willi@social.tchncs.de a VPS can be had from DigitalOcean or Vultr quite economically (although I know that isn't always the case in some countries) You can also use our referral link for an account credit too!
  • Test Post for @julian

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