#activitystreams2 — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #activitystreams2, aggregated by home.social.
-
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:PropertyValuein actorattachmentfor profile metadata fields (like “Website”, “GitHub”, etc.)? Turns out, strict #AS2 validators like browser.pub reject it, because the AS2 spec saysattachmentshould only containObjectorLink—andPropertyValueis 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:PropertyValueextendingObject), 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:PropertyValuein actorattachmentfor profile metadata fields (like “Website”, “GitHub”, etc.)? Turns out, strict #AS2 validators like browser.pub reject it, because the AS2 spec saysattachmentshould only containObjectorLink—andPropertyValueis 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:PropertyValueextendingObject), 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:PropertyValuein actorattachmentfor profile metadata fields (like “Website”, “GitHub”, etc.)? Turns out, strict #AS2 validators like browser.pub reject it, because the AS2 spec saysattachmentshould only containObjectorLink—andPropertyValueis 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:PropertyValueextendingObject), 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:PropertyValuein actorattachmentfor profile metadata fields (like “Website”, “GitHub”, etc.)? Turns out, strict #AS2 validators like browser.pub reject it, because the AS2 spec saysattachmentshould only containObjectorLink—andPropertyValueis 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:PropertyValueextendingObject), 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:PropertyValuein actorattachmentfor profile metadata fields (like “Website”, “GitHub”, etc.)? Turns out, strict #AS2 validators like browser.pub reject it, because the AS2 spec saysattachmentshould only containObjectorLink—andPropertyValueis 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:PropertyValueextendingObject), 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
-
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?