Skip to content

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

Uncategorized
116 66 775

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    jsit@social.coop Ghost? NodeBB? Just to name a couple
  • 0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    49 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    trwnh@mastodon.social but as:Public is not a dereferenceable URL. Needs to be special cased anyway. End of the day nothing changes, it needs special handling for all the cases anyway. cc silverpill@mitra.social
  • Should I present a topic at FediCon?

    Uncategorized fedicon activitypub fosdem
    3
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    rwg@aoir.social I'm not actually sure! You'll have to ask reiver@mastodon.social about that one. Let me know too!
  • Unicode in handles

    ActivityPub unicode activitypub
    15
    0 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    122 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
    64 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
    87 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
    150 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
    83 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Uups, next try https://nrw.social/deck/@FrankM/113606591981853331