Skip to content

Blogtastisch: 2. Blogs und das Fediverse

notizBlog
17 8 212

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • Long-form articles

    Uncategorized activitypub
    21
    0 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    feb@loma.ml well the great thing is the FEP is still a draft and your opinions are welcome cc jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.eu silverpill@mitra.social
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    A reminder that the ForumWG meeting will begin in 15 minutes.
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    tom@tomkahe.com That's a fun idea... I'm doing it (using FetchRSS, though) in NodeBB. community.openbeta.io pulls in a bunch of climbing news websites via their RSS feeds and re-publishes it onto fedi
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    occultist8128@infosec.pub "followers only" is a concept that is Mastodon specific, and Pixelfed supports it. There's nothing to change at the protocol level itself. Sending the reply to OP in your example would be a betrayal of the visibility of followers only... which is kind of silly but technically correct. Better would be followers + participants, but that's up to the individual implementors to adopt.
  • 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
  • Unicode in handles

    ActivityPub unicode activitypub
    15
    0 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    151 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
    17 Beiträge
    189 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
    109 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Uups, next try https://nrw.social/deck/@FrankM/113606591981853331