Skip to content

As someone who has developed several #ActivityPub software implementations ([Fedify], [Hollo], [BotKit], and [Hackers' Pub]), I believe one of the most frustrating features to implement in the #fediverse is #custom_emoji.

Uncategorized
43 9 0

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • What drew you to ActivityPub?

    ActivityPub activitypub dotsocial blogs
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    11 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!
  • 0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    silverpill@mitra.social I wasn't aware that there were sections pertaining to context. I'll have to review more closely.
  • OF alternative fediverse?

    Uncategorized fediverse
    12
    0 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Tell me about it! There are some very cool people (i.e. thisismissem@hachyderm.io) working on content classification and tagging so that the burden of filtering out this kind of content isn't borne by server admins directly.
  • Backfilling Conversations: Two Major Approaches

    ActivityPub activitypub fep 7888 f228 171b
    26
    0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    100 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    > One weakness I have noticed in NodeBB's current federation is that posts which are in reply to a topic (e.g. a Lemmy comment) show up as individual threads until (or if) the root post of that topic shows up in the local NodeBB. No, Lemmy does not implement either strategy, they rely on 1b12 only. If NodeBB is receiving parts of a topic that don't resolve up to the root-level post that might be something we can fix. I'll try to take a look at it.
  • Missing project?

    Uncategorized fediverse
    11
    0 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    58 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    m_f@discuss.online not directly, but there was a session at FediForum on Thursday that discussed the website and next steps for updating it. It's been stagnant for quite awhile but evan@cosocial.ca and j12t@j12t.social finally have write access to the repo and control of the domain.
  • Fun with Federation: Lemmy edition

    ActivityPub nodebb lemmy activitypub
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    28 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
    17 Beiträge
    154 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