Minutes from 3 October 2024 WG Meeting
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Darius Kazemi on last edited by
@darius @erincandescent @julian @evan well, the json-ld keyword has an @ in front of it for a reason: https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#syntax-tokens-and-keywords
id and type got aliased but they're really supposed to be @\id and @\type: https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/232
other point of confusion re: @\context vs context was overruled: https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/238
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to infinite love ⴳ on last edited by
@darius @erincandescent @julian @evan there was probably a time when `context` could've gotten renamed in the same way that `scope` was renamed to `audience`, but we're about 10 years too late on that discussion
-
-
@trwnh @darius @julian @evan I will be the first to admit that I’m not a massive fan of the “context” property name but given it is baked into likely billions of posts at this point I mostly feel it’s the lesser of two evils. If this were an misuse of the property that was blocking some preferable use (e.g. Mastodon’s abuse of the “summary” property for CWs) then I would agree that it would be worth dealing with the pain, but in this case I feel pretty much any use of the property would be better off picking a more specific name so we may as well grandfather the use of “context” for “conversational context” (which is a valid use, per the definition)
Truthfully the Original Sin here is the inclusion of such vaguely defined terms in the original AS2 specification
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Evan Prodromou on last edited by
@evan @erincandescent @julian @darius I can leave this as a comment on the PR or the issue tracker, but my position is that "conversation tree" is entirely the wrong way to look at it, because a "conversation" and a "reply tree" are not the same thing. You can fork the conversation, you can reply to something in a different conversation, and you can have your post moved to a different conversation. I could define a property for it, but my intent was to gracefully degrade to using it for grouping
-
Evan Prodromoureplied to infinite love ⴳ on last edited by
@trwnh @erincandescent @julian @darius great, definitely comment.
-
@[email protected] Yes! Exactly... and one could prune a branch (and all of its descendents) off of a reply tree and plant it anew, making it a new conversational context.
Heck, while I'm abusing this analogy, one could even graft a branch onto another context's object!
... but let's not do that lest my brain explode.
-
@silverpill @darius @julian thank you!
-
@trwnh @darius @evan @julian (I have converted these thoughts and a few more into an issue. It’s a bit strange to see discussion for a FEP moved to an issue tracker - for pretty much all of them historically a SocialHub thread has been made, and that has worked quite well)
-
@deadsuperhero @julian @darius
1. It defines a new property, `thread`, to identify the conversation thread of an object, instead of the `context` property, which can be used for other things besides threading.
2. It uses an existing type, `OrderedCollection`, for the thread, instead of creating a new type.
3. It defines a `root` property to quickly navigate from a thread collection to the root object.
4. The thread contains objects that point to each other using the `inReplyTo` property. -
@erincandescent @julian @darius @trwnh it was offered as an option and I vastly prefer being able to resolve question by question rather than a long conversation thread that doesn't ever finish.
-
Scott M. Stolzreplied to Evan Prodromou on last edited byHaving a separate thread property may be useful. One possible use case would be where threads or posts are labelled or categorized or placed in a list, and this is exposed as a context.
In that case, the thread and the context would be different.
cc: @Evan Prodromou @Sean Tilley @julian @Darius Kazemi
