#activitystreams2 — Public Fediverse posts

So, an interesting issue came up in the #Fedify repo that I've been thinking about: #629.

You know how every #fediverse server uses schema:PropertyValue in actor attachment for profile metadata fields (like “Website”, “GitHub”, etc.)? Turns out, strict #AS2 validators like browser.pub reject it, because the AS2 spec says attachment should only contain Object or Link—and PropertyValue is a schema.org type, not an Activity Streams 2.0 type.

The thing is, we can't just drop the type like we did with Endpoints (#576), because Mastodon and others rely on seeing "type": "PropertyValue" to render profile fields. But at the same time, it's technically not spec-compliant.

I'm leaning towards writing a #FEP to formalize this existing practice rather than trying to invent a new type (like toot:PropertyValue extending Object), which would be a nightmare to migrate across the whole fediverse.

What do you all think? Has anyone else run into this? Would love to hear thoughts from implementers and spec folks.

#fedidev #ActivityPub #ActivityStreams #ActivityStreams2 #AS2 #PropertyValue

So, an interesting issue came up in the #Fedify repo that I've been thinking about: #629.

You know how every #fediverse server uses schema:PropertyValue in actor attachment for profile metadata fields (like “Website”, “GitHub”, etc.)? Turns out, strict #AS2 validators like browser.pub reject it, because the AS2 spec says attachment should only contain Object or Link—and PropertyValue is a schema.org type, not an Activity Streams 2.0 type.

The thing is, we can't just drop the type like we did with Endpoints (#576), because Mastodon and others rely on seeing "type": "PropertyValue" to render profile fields. But at the same time, it's technically not spec-compliant.

I'm leaning towards writing a #FEP to formalize this existing practice rather than trying to invent a new type (like toot:PropertyValue extending Object), which would be a nightmare to migrate across the whole fediverse.

What do you all think? Has anyone else run into this? Would love to hear thoughts from implementers and spec folks.

#fedidev #ActivityPub #ActivityStreams #ActivityStreams2 #AS2 #PropertyValue

So, an interesting issue came up in the #Fedify repo that I've been thinking about: #629.

You know how every #fediverse server uses schema:PropertyValue in actor attachment for profile metadata fields (like “Website”, “GitHub”, etc.)? Turns out, strict #AS2 validators like browser.pub reject it, because the AS2 spec says attachment should only contain Object or Link—and PropertyValue is a schema.org type, not an Activity Streams 2.0 type.

The thing is, we can't just drop the type like we did with Endpoints (#576), because Mastodon and others rely on seeing "type": "PropertyValue" to render profile fields. But at the same time, it's technically not spec-compliant.

I'm leaning towards writing a #FEP to formalize this existing practice rather than trying to invent a new type (like toot:PropertyValue extending Object), which would be a nightmare to migrate across the whole fediverse.

What do you all think? Has anyone else run into this? Would love to hear thoughts from implementers and spec folks.

#fedidev #ActivityPub #ActivityStreams #ActivityStreams2 #AS2 #PropertyValue

So, an interesting issue came up in the #Fedify repo that I've been thinking about: #629.

You know how every #fediverse server uses schema:PropertyValue in actor attachment for profile metadata fields (like “Website”, “GitHub”, etc.)? Turns out, strict #AS2 validators like browser.pub reject it, because the AS2 spec says attachment should only contain Object or Link—and PropertyValue is a schema.org type, not an Activity Streams 2.0 type.

The thing is, we can't just drop the type like we did with Endpoints (#576), because Mastodon and others rely on seeing "type": "PropertyValue" to render profile fields. But at the same time, it's technically not spec-compliant.

I'm leaning towards writing a #FEP to formalize this existing practice rather than trying to invent a new type (like toot:PropertyValue extending Object), which would be a nightmare to migrate across the whole fediverse.

What do you all think? Has anyone else run into this? Would love to hear thoughts from implementers and spec folks.

#fedidev #ActivityPub #ActivityStreams #ActivityStreams2 #AS2 #PropertyValue

So, an interesting issue came up in the #Fedify repo that I've been thinking about: #629.

You know how every #fediverse server uses schema:PropertyValue in actor attachment for profile metadata fields (like “Website”, “GitHub”, etc.)? Turns out, strict #AS2 validators like browser.pub reject it, because the AS2 spec says attachment should only contain Object or Link—and PropertyValue is a schema.org type, not an Activity Streams 2.0 type.

The thing is, we can't just drop the type like we did with Endpoints (#576), because Mastodon and others rely on seeing "type": "PropertyValue" to render profile fields. But at the same time, it's technically not spec-compliant.

I'm leaning towards writing a #FEP to formalize this existing practice rather than trying to invent a new type (like toot:PropertyValue extending Object), which would be a nightmare to migrate across the whole fediverse.

What do you all think? Has anyone else run into this? Would love to hear thoughts from implementers and spec folks.

#fedidev #ActivityPub #ActivityStreams #ActivityStreams2 #AS2 #PropertyValue

So I raised this at the end of SWICG Issue Triage, and the consensus there was that we don't need an explicit Reply activity, as there's "any object can have inReplyTo" and "inReplyTo" doesn't necessarily mean "add to the object's replies collection — both are necessary here, activities that aren't in the replies collection but are inReplyTo would be treated as "other replies" and software may choose to hide them

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

So I raised this at the end of SWICG Issue Triage, and the consensus there was that we don't need an explicit Reply activity, as there's "any object can have inReplyTo" and "inReplyTo" doesn't necessarily mean "add to the object's replies collection — both are necessary here, activities that aren't in the replies collection but are inReplyTo would be treated as "other replies" and software may choose to hide them

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

So I raised this at the end of SWICG Issue Triage, and the consensus there was that we don't need an explicit Reply activity, as there's "any object can have inReplyTo" and "inReplyTo" doesn't necessarily mean "add to the object's replies collection — both are necessary here, activities that aren't in the replies collection but are inReplyTo would be treated as "other replies" and software may choose to hide them

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

So I raised this at the end of SWICG Issue Triage, and the consensus there was that we don't need an explicit Reply activity, as there's "any object can have inReplyTo" and "inReplyTo" doesn't necessarily mean "add to the object's replies collection — both are necessary here, activities that aren't in the replies collection but are inReplyTo would be treated as "other replies" and software may choose to hide them

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

So I raised this at the end of SWICG Issue Triage, and the consensus there was that we don't need an explicit Reply activity, as there's "any object can have inReplyTo" and "inReplyTo" doesn't necessarily mean "add to the object's replies collection — both are necessary here, activities that aren't in the replies collection but are inReplyTo would be treated as "other replies" and software may choose to hide them

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

Am wondering if it'd make sense to have a dedicated Reply activity, such that a reply becomes Reply(Note) instead of Create(Note)

Where the Reply activity has the target & is sent to that server only, before being forwarded?

Would this make the protocol clearer for implementers?

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

Am wondering if it'd make sense to have a dedicated Reply activity, such that a reply becomes Reply(Note) instead of Create(Note)

Where the Reply activity has the target & is sent to that server only, before being forwarded?

Would this make the protocol clearer for implementers?

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

Am wondering if it'd make sense to have a dedicated Reply activity, such that a reply becomes Reply(Note) instead of Create(Note)

Where the Reply activity has the target & is sent to that server only, before being forwarded?

Would this make the protocol clearer for implementers?

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

Am wondering if it'd make sense to have a dedicated Reply activity, such that a reply becomes Reply(Note) instead of Create(Note)

Where the Reply activity has the target & is sent to that server only, before being forwarded?

Would this make the protocol clearer for implementers?

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

Am wondering if it'd make sense to have a dedicated Reply activity, such that a reply becomes Reply(Note) instead of Create(Note)

Where the Reply activity has the target & is sent to that server only, before being forwarded?

Would this make the protocol clearer for implementers?

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

@[email protected] we’ve tracked the bug down to one or more problems stemming from having a link in a post to an https: URL that fails to resolve or times out, in the context of an @-mention.

Bridgy Fed is attempting to fetch it and times out. When a #fediverse instance fetches the AS2 version of a post, and Bridgy Fed attempts to fetch that post’s links to construct the AS2 for the post, Bridgy Fed times out, which then likely times out the original AS2 request, so #Mastodon instances never get the requested AS2 post.

There are multiple possible problems:
* content authoring errors (including bad links, links going bad)
* Bridgy Fed attempting to retrieve every link in a post in order to construct the AS2 for a post, possibly with too long timeouts, so the overall AS2 construction takes too long
* Mastodon timing out when requesting the AS2 for a post, then giving up and never trying again (e.g. even when it receives an UPDATE for the post)

More discussion here:
* https://chat.indieweb.org/dev/2024-09-04#t1725421768496000
More details here:
* https://github.com/snarfed/bridgy-fed/issues/884#issuecomment-2327861883

#BridgyFed #atMention #ActivityStreams2