Minutes from 3 October 2024 WG Meeting
-
Erin 💽✨replied to infinite love ⴳ on last edited by
@trwnh @thisismissem @julian For all that the current use of as:alsoKnownAs disagrees with its definition… I’m not sure that’s a problem (except for the need to amend the spec)
We have reasonably straightfoward ways to indicate “This is also me” (alsoKnownAs) vs “This is an exact alias for me” (xrd:alias)
-
@julian @erincandescent @darius right, so Lemmy basically forces you to start one level higher and then work your way down, on top of all the reply-tree reconstruction you're expected to do from one big outbox haystack
it reminds me of how we should actually try to flesh out the concept of Group actors and maybe alongside it the concept of a Forum (bc they're not the same to me, there are differences that need to be called out)
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Erin 💽✨ on last edited by
@erincandescent @julian @thisismissem well the real problem is it has undefined implicit "real-world" usage in fedi... and then separately the DID WG tried to (re?)define it in DID Core. but there's already stuff out there in DID world that uses alsoKnownAs the way it's defined in DID Core!
-
infinite love â´łreplied to infinite love â´ł on last edited by
@thisismissem @julian @erincandescent after some slight reconsideration i think i might hold off on a FEP because the bigger issue with migration and a so-called Migrate activity is that what i should *really* be doing is accounting for multihoming. in that sense, Migrate might not make too much sense. anyway i'm moving it to the "requires further thought" section of my todoist list
-
@erincandescent @julian @darius it's covered in the doc, which is free to read!
-
@erincandescent @julian @darius you can also file an issue here:
-
@erincandescent @julian @evan it does mention the @context name collision which is imo a real point of confusion
-
@erincandescent @julian @darius great. You can definitely use both.
`context` is fine for any kind of grouping of objects, as is noted in AV.
If you want to specifically talk about a conversation tree, a more specific property is better.
-
Evan Prodromoureplied to Evan Prodromou on last edited by [email protected]
@erincandescent @julian @darius finally, if you'd like to talk to me as part of the Forums TF or even as part of the FEP process, where there's a code of conduct, I'd appreciate it if you dial back your derisive tone. It's not OK to talk to me or anybody else working on AP that way.
-
-
Evan Prodromoureplied to Evan Prodromou on last edited by
@erincandescent @julian @darius I think the best followup might be commenting on the PR or filing an issue on Codeberg.
-
infinite love â´łreplied 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 â´łreplied to infinite love â´ł 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
-
-
Erin 💽✨replied to infinite love ⴳ on last edited by
@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 â´łreplied 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 â´ł 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.
