With respect to #ActivityPub

Hrefna (DHC)

Simply, having now seen more into the guts of the process and how it is managed both historically and today, and understanding how the w3c works, I have no faith in their ability to define a clear consensus way forward out of the current set of problems.

Not "no faith in <timeline>" but no faith in the ability to define a clear way forward here.

This doesn't mean that someone outside of w3c couldn't define a better way forward, even one using AP, but w3c won't.

Hrefna (DHC)

One way forward:

Someone defines a way forward within the FEP process. Not as in a static document, but builds a working group "chartered" by a FEP ( @smallcircles would appreciate this, I think).

But ultimately we're looking at needing a "AP2" and that is a fundamentally broken prospect looking at the w3c processes today. Even if they could produce such I have no faith that the problems are understood or that the right people would be in the room.

Ben Pate 🤘🏻

@hrefna I agree with you 100%

Do you see a path forward? FEPs?

Many here are so committed to “how things were” that it’s hard to talk about “how things could be”

I’ll happily sign on to something AP-adjacent (strict mode?) that lets us talk to Mastodon and Threads for now, and provides a richer overall UX among the implementers of the new protocol.

Any new group would have to be small, and filled with actual implementers, not industry reps and armchair architects.

Jenniferplusplus

@benpate @hrefna actual implementers is a critical component.

Amber

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I've held this belief for a while. FEPs might not be standardized by W3C but that *isn't* stopping us from implementing them and using them as if they were standard. A lot of standards have had things become standardized because they were common practice beforehand (look at C, C++ implementations). https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/9fde/fep-9fde.md I really would like to see this actually implemented and used.

Jenniferplusplus

@puppygirlhornypost2 @hrefna @benpate
This idea of putting together some structured way to describe how other servers should speak to you is one that's come up repeatedly. I'm not all that optimistic about it. I have no idea what the other party could or should do with that info. It's not a problem that's solvable at run time. At least not with the resources and constraints we actually have.

Jenniferplusplus

@puppygirlhornypost2 @hrefna @benpate
I get why people are doing it. It's the thing that would make AP an actual protocol. But only if it was done in advance, at design time. So that implementing the protocol meant producing and expecting those behaviors.

I don't think you can get from A to B with FEPs. You have to start fresh, with a successor protocol that actually defines those behaviors.

Amber

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I mean I completely agree this should have been part of the core design. Adding it after is a bandaid and it's not going to fix instance software that cannot support it. Still... better than what they're doing with instance version strings

Jenniferplusplus

@puppygirlhornypost2 @hrefna @benpate It's marginally better than doing compatibility divination based on user agent strings, yes.

But only marginally.

Hrefna (DHC)

Fundamentally though I think what is required is:

1. A working group
2. Chartered outside of the w3c
3. That does not work piecemeal
4. With a vision to move past AP and a willingness to break compatibility

lily

@jenniferplusplus @puppygirlhornypost2 @hrefna @benpate the issue with writing a new protocol instead of extending an existing one is that it isn't worth anything without anyone actually using it, and getting software developers to implement a completely new protocol instead of adding extensions to their current implementation is a much more difficult task

Ben Pate 🤘🏻

@jenniferplusplus @puppygirlhornypost2 @hrefna

Do you think some sort of overlay is possible? Something compatible with old school AP, but streamlined and rationalized for actual implementation? Something like HTML “strict” mode, or even the simplification that turned SGML into HTML in the first place.

Maybe the first step is to get a gang together and work out the four or five biggest issues we actually want to solve (including. HTTP digs omg), then focus in the mechanism afterward.

Jenniferplusplus

@hrefna Yes. Exactly this. I would personally suggest that the best target to aim for, in compatibility terms, is "possible to develop incrementally, and relatively easy to extend from existing AP logic"

Ben Pate 🤘🏻

@lily @jenniferplusplus @puppygirlhornypost2 @hrefna

I agree. We must build on AP, not throw it away. The model that makes sense to me is “strict” mode. I know LitePub tried this, but I don’t know why it failed. Perhaps that’s a starting point for making a successful change.

/etc/init.d/witch.navi

@hrefna @smallcircles

i do want to (try) to start a wayland-protocols-like process for FEPs

extensions requires ACKs from current implementation maintainer, and 2 actual real world implementations

lily

@benpate @puppygirlhornypost2 @jenniferplusplus @hrefna what is strict mode?

1A

@hrefna given how [w3c accepts drm money](https://www.defectivebydesign.org/w3c), i don't know much about the prospects of fediverse under w3c control

Helge

With a vision to move past AP and a willingness to break compatibility

I think alone clearly stating what this vision is, and formulating acceptance criteria for it, would be of immense help.

My personal acceptance criteria (of a social networking protocol) is: When building a recipe sharing app, a developer has to worry more about converting three tea spoons of salts into sensible units, than what the exact data structure that represents a message is, or how other applications display the recipe (if they even do).

Noah Kennedy

@hrefna i wonder if the ietf might be a better forum for this

smallcircles (Humanity Now 🕊)

@helge @hrefna

This!