Skip to content
  • 2 Votes
    1 Posts
    23 Views
    julianJ

    There have been some scattered discussions I've seen over the past year that mention that @[email protected]'s WordPress ActivityPub plugin federates their blog posts out as an as:Note, and that the only reason this is done is because Mastodon only treats as:Note (and as:Question) as a first-class object and relegates anything else to a fallback handler that takes a short snippet of the content, and shows a link back to the original source, thus losing any in-app benefits (boosts, replies, etc.)

    Whether this is actually true or not, I do not know. So that's why I'd like to ask Mattias — or anybody else with some context — here.

    For reference:

    as:Article: Represents any kind of multi-paragraph written work. as:Note: Represents a short written work typically less than a single paragraph in length. as:Page: Represents a Web Page.

    I have also noticed that Lemmy, perhaps out of principle, sends out an as:Page for new generated content, and only the replies federate out as as:Note. It has unfortunately led to some assertions that Lemmy's federation is "broken", even though it is arguably not the case.

    @[email protected], care to weigh in?

    I don't even blame Mattias for opting to send everything out as as:Note.

    End of the day right now it doesn't matter how Mattias or Nutomic represent their higher-level collection of data, because Mastodon is the largest implementor and neither they — nor anyone else I know of, for that matter — treat anything that's not as:Note or as:Question specially.

    But that ought to change. The question is how, but this WG is not at the point where we start throwing around decrees and making up standards.

    What's important to me right now is what the landscape looks like right now, and why that is the case.

    N.B. The discussion here will eventually make its way to online real-time discussion at one of the future WG meetings.

  • 4 Votes
    4 Posts
    116 Views
    trwnh@mastodon.socialT

    @julian @rimu i think that was rimu actually, although i can probably give a summary

  • 2 Votes
    2 Posts
    98 Views
    julianJ

    Ah it looks like this was covered by Angus' post over on SocialHub

  • 19 Votes
    8 Posts
    2k Views
    hrefna@hachyderm.ioH

    @julian I am once again reminded of why Roberts Rules are written the way that they are and why the "Roberts Rules for small groups" caps at 12 people.

  • 13 Votes
    7 Posts
    557 Views
    julianJ

    @[email protected] not a problem, I'll post up the minutes soon for open discussion!

    We didn't get into any technical details re: ordered collections, etc., so there's still time to discuss the intricacies of 9988.

  • 39 Votes
    47 Posts
    6k Views
    AaronNGrayA

    @julian @[email protected]
    Peeps, if we could further fill in the terminology spreadsheet and maybe use this as a start to deeper map between the platforms/protocols :- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tPZXywqFZe3xXx_fV9icNHLOkSrXx3_rHhPeRmMBZR4/edit#gid=0