@mkljczk @ce @kopper Yeah, people are working on it and there are many proposals. Some of them are just ideas, others are waiting for implementers: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep
-
@mkljczk @ce @kopper Yeah, people are working on it and there are many proposals. Some of them are just ideas, others are waiting for implementers: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep
-
-
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] nope. all these extensions are bad and i hope they never get added
-
kopper [according to whom?] :colon_three:replied to silverpill last edited by
@silverpill @mkljczk @ce my personal grumble with FEPs (and i guess the socialhub-sphere as a whole) is how much useless bikeshedding over irrelevant details happens.
take the emoji reactions FEP for example: it's a feature that already exists and is federating by the second largest FOSS implementation, yet the socialhub discussion immediately turned to breaking backwards compatibility because "wouldn't it be better if you could Dislike with a reaction????". honestly, misskey's Like-with-content was nothing but a hack to make mastodon happy and baking that into the standard just because Semantics just misses the whole mark here. like, is a :silica_gel: reaction a Like or a Dislike? how do you decide on that? How about (genuine) and (ironic)?
Another example is FEP-fb2a, which breaks both backwards compatibility and also breaks assumptions about Note objects some instance software might have (how would your usual microblogging software handle a Note with no author?), just because of useless Semantics debates that don't end up leading anywhere useful
i myself (with both my own implementation and the impl i'm currently using on this instance and am occasionally contributing to) have just tuned the socialhub circle out due to this mess, aside from occasionally picking and choosing the occasional good idea (FEP-2c59 and FEP-e232, for example) -
kopper [according to whom?] :colon_three:replied to kopper [according to whom?] :colon_three: last edited by
@silverpill @mkljczk @ce (p.s. reacting with remote custom emoji is in a direly unspecified position that only manages to federate by sheer luck. since I believe you wrote up the custom emoji FEP you may want to take a look at that too)
i'd go into the socialhub discussion myself but a) i can't be bothered with setting up yet another account for a place and protocol i'm extremely disillusioned with, and b) there's some federation incompat with discourse and this instance i need to look into at some point -
silverpillreplied to kopper [according to whom?] :colon_three: last edited by
@kopper Bikeshedding is a part of the process. If some implementers don't like the proposal, it will not become standard, so we try to reach consensus.
In case of Emoji reactions FEP, it still describes current best practices. I'm not going to add anything that could harm interop.>reacting with remote custom emoji is in a direly unspecified position that only manages to federate by sheer luck. since I believe you wrote up the custom emoji FEP you may want to take a look at that too
I was thinking about this recently and came to conclusion that reacting with remote custom emoji is totally okay. It doesn't seem to violate any written or unwritten authorization rules
FEP-c0e0: Embedded Emoji can originate from a different server
fep - Fediverse Enhancement Proposals
Codeberg.org (codeberg.org)
-