This is an interesting (pronounced like "frustrating") thread.

Nik | Klampfradler 🎸🚲

Content being identified by IRIs (not URLs) is the backbone of the web. It could probably be other kinds of IRIs, yes, but don't drop the IRIs. And make sure they always stay dereferencable through HTTPS.

nilesh

@nik @jenniferplusplus What's this IRI you speak of?

Nik | Klampfradler 🎸🚲

@nilesh @jenniferplusplus

Basically, what you refer to as a URL (which, for the current state of the Fediverse, mostly is the same because virtually all IRIs of ActivityPub contents are URLs today).

But actually, ActivityPub content has an IRI, which does not have to be a URL, not even today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalized_Resource_Identifier

nilesh

@nik @jenniferplusplus IRI seems to be about just allowing extra characters, not content-addressing.

It would be easy enough to build content-addressability within existing URLs. For example:

`https://myblog.com/my-article-<multihash>.html`

Web browsers could have built this universally for all resources when defining the SubResource Integrity spec which is ensures that JS scripts a page downloads has not been tampered with. They chose `<script integrity="<hashalgorith>-<hashvalue>">` instead.

Nik | Klampfradler 🎸🚲

@nilesh @jenniferplusplus

The difference is the third letter – I vs. L.

An IRI (or URI), in contrast to a UR**L**, does **not** need to be a concrete HTTP address on the public web that can directly be loaded from a web server.

Dmitri | 🇺🇦

@jenniferplusplus re
> except activitypub and the w3c are now actively standing in the way, and sucking up all the oxygen for organizing that

So, I'm partly involved in activitypub and w3c stuff, so of course I'm very curious to hear more - what are some of the ways it's standing in the way? I mean, best as I can tell (being involved in it), the social web cg is just trying to provide some github repos, and some (monthly) calls for devs to coordinate, share pain points, start task forces..

Jenniferplusplus

@dmitri the problems with activitypub can't be solved with feps and eratta. There are fundamental issues that break implementation and prevent implementations from meaningfully interoperating. The kind of changes that would be required to fix that are explicitly out of bounds. But here's the w3c, starting up task forces that just serve to limit what's possible and distract from any other effort.

Dmitri | 🇺🇦

@jenniferplusplus Why distract, though? Can't we all work on all this stuff in parallel? For example, one of the task forces is the Threaded Discussions and Forums Task Force -- it's basically a bunch of implementers from forum and Reddit-like platforms trying to hammer out ways of interoperating. I don't disagree with you that ActivityPub has deep problems and needs work. But like..

Jenniferplusplus

@dmitri this doesn't feel like a serious question. The efforts that are blessed by the big standards org soak up all the attention, and they're explicitly prohibited from making the changes that lead to better outcomes for implenters. There's only so much attention people can give. There's only so much time they can give it. It's the same 2 dozen people who need to actually do the work, in coordination with each other, and it's impossible for them to do 2 things at once.

Dmitri | 🇺🇦

@jenniferplusplus I think 'efforts blessed by big standards org' implies a lot more gravitas than what actually happens. Again, taking the Forum TF as example - it was just a bunch of devs wanting to coordinate their implementations, they asked the CG to come do it in a task force, CG was delighted. Happened several times. Why is this 'soaking up attention'? Or, where else would you rather devs meet to collab? If there are better venues, I wanna be there too!

Jenniferplusplus

@dmitri Are you trying to understand my perspective, or to convince me that it's wrong?

Because it feels like you're trying to convince me of something. Which honestly is not going to happen.

I'm aware of the forum task force. I'm participating as much as I can. It is, by a wide margin, the most promising effort that the socialCG has going. And still a very common end to discussions there is that any given problem can only be solved by changes that the socialCG is not chartered to make.

Dmitri | 🇺🇦

@jenniferplusplus hey, understood, i can totally see how this comes across as trying to convince. and, deep apologies. i /am/ trying to understand, couple of things 1) why does it feel that things like TFs are sucking the air out of the room? (given that you're there, and see that it's just devs collaborating) and 2) where would you prefer that this work be done, instead?

Jenniferplusplus

@dmitri it's mostly not a question of where the work is happening. The problem is the limits that the w3c has placed on what's possible.

I mean, funneling communication into mailing lists and monthly group calls certainly doesn't help. So many of the people doing this work are under employed queer and disabled millennials. Those channels don't work for us. But even if you change that, the limited charter of the social cg is still the ultimate restriction on what can get done.

Dmitri | 🇺🇦

@jenniferplusplus Understood, thank you.

Jenniferplusplus

@dmitri I imagine that you're also reading this, but since the dynamic is playing out again barely 2 days later, I thought I'd call your attention to it.

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/socialwebfoundation-what-do-people-think/4564/33?u=jenniferplusplus

The effect of the w3c in this case is to be a shield against change. I'm sure it's supposed to be a gathering point, but instead it's this obstacle that people keep running into, and then scattering away from.

Dmitri | 🇺🇦

@jenniferplusplus I hear you. And I'm frustrated too (by the pace of change, both how slow specs creation is in general, and also how slow implementation/rollout can be once the spec is ready).
I think part of the reason I'm not campaigning (harder) for AP 2.0 is:

1. From listening to what people want out of 2.0, 99% of it seems to be not AP itself but _adjacent_ specs (portable identity, access control, affordances for moderation, etc etc). So I personally'd love to focus on those first.

and

Dmitri | 🇺🇦

@jenniferplusplus
2. even more importantly, maybe adopting a process similar to what https://tc39.es does for JS might be even better for Fedi than a breaking 2.0 spec?

That's the route we're trying to take here with this proposed governance doc: https://github.com/swicg/potential-charters/pull/4

The idea being, we can explicitly state and clarify how _each feature_ of a potential 2.0 spec would make its way from FEPs/blog posts etc to CG to WG and into its own spec.
Would that address any of your concerns?

Jenniferplusplus

@dmitri Some part of the problem is that you're still doing it. I don't think that anything short of breaking changes will be sufficient to address most serious concerns. The WG could ease that process by organizing work on a non-breaking mechanism to negotiate and/or advertise alternate versions.