#ActivityPub is getting its first formal update path since 2018.
Uncategorized
37
Posts
13
Posters
97
Views
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg I will fight pretty hard against breaking changes in ActivityPub. We have an active network with tens of millions of people and tens of thousands of servers. It's too late for breaking changes and it has been for a really long time. Expect changes like: describing required properties of activities better. How `replies` (and maybe `context`) work. References to OAuth, Webfinger and HTTP Signature.
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg I will fight pretty hard against breaking changes in ActivityPub. We have an active network with tens of millions of people and tens of thousands of servers. It's too late for breaking changes and it has been for a really long time. Expect changes like: describing required properties of activities better. How `replies` (and maybe `context`) work. References to OAuth, Webfinger and HTTP Signature.
@julian @silverpill @slyborg it's also worth noting that all discussions of the WG will be on a public mailing list. People can join the meetings, comment on drafts on GitHub. People interested in making more substantive contributions can become invited experts, even if they're not from a member organization.
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg it's also worth noting that all discussions of the WG will be on a public mailing list. People can join the meetings, comment on drafts on GitHub. People interested in making more substantive contributions can become invited experts, even if they're not from a member organization.
@julian @silverpill @slyborg most importantly: no protocol is mandatory. No protocol revision is mandatory. If the work the WG does isn't useful, nobody has to implement it.
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg most importantly: no protocol is mandatory. No protocol revision is mandatory. If the work the WG does isn't useful, nobody has to implement it.
@julian @silverpill @slyborg the changes I have marked for the next version are here.
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22Next%20version%22
I know there are some on there that Silverpill won't like, such as supporting IRIs for object IDs. I think it's worth having that conversation.
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg the changes I have marked for the next version are here.
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22Next%20version%22
I know there are some on there that Silverpill won't like, such as supporting IRIs for object IDs. I think it's worth having that conversation.
@julian @silverpill @slyborg I wonder, though: what would be some changes that would worry you? I'm having a hard time imagining what they would be.
The best I can come up with are features that are too complex for small development teams (e.g. oodles of mandatory APIs), or too resource intensive for small instances to support (e.g. required to handle terabytes of big data).
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg I wonder, though: what would be some changes that would worry you? I'm having a hard time imagining what they would be.
The best I can come up with are features that are too complex for small development teams (e.g. oodles of mandatory APIs), or too resource intensive for small instances to support (e.g. required to handle terabytes of big data).
The only other thing I can think of are forced anti-features, like mandatory advertising, mandatory algorithmic feeds, or forced participation in LLM training.
Are there other things I'm missing?
-
The only other thing I can think of are forced anti-features, like mandatory advertising, mandatory algorithmic feeds, or forced participation in LLM training.
Are there other things I'm missing?
@julian @silverpill for you two especially, I wonder if you think there could be Trojans inserted into the ActivityPub 1.1 spec -- something that seems innocuous on the surface, but would actually EEE the Fediverse? I just don't think the standard is complex enough that anyone could hide anti-features in it that you and I couldn't find. Maybe, I dunno.
-
@julian @silverpill for you two especially, I wonder if you think there could be Trojans inserted into the ActivityPub 1.1 spec -- something that seems innocuous on the surface, but would actually EEE the Fediverse? I just don't think the standard is complex enough that anyone could hide anti-features in it that you and I couldn't find. Maybe, I dunno.
@julian @silverpill I think a heaping dose of skepticism is healthy for standards efforts. I'm glad to know you're keeping your eyes open.
-
@julian @silverpill @slyborg I will fight pretty hard against breaking changes in ActivityPub. We have an active network with tens of millions of people and tens of thousands of servers. It's too late for breaking changes and it has been for a really long time. Expect changes like: describing required properties of activities better. How `replies` (and maybe `context`) work. References to OAuth, Webfinger and HTTP Signature.
@evan @julian @silverpill @slyborg What about "breaking" bug fixes in the spec? Many parts of spec are used by ~0 people on ~0 servers so the impact is only positive to do those fixes. Required properties is an interesting topic. Adding a required property beyond `id` (conditionally), `type`, and `input`/`outbox` for actor types *would* be breaking and potentially have a large negative impact (unless they are only associated with optional new features).
-
undefined filobus@sociale.network shared this topic on
-
The only way compromise happens is if there are other players of similar size in the committee to counterbalance a large player. If this is Meta and a bunch of nonprofits, Meta either dictates the standard or forks it and effectively replaces it. (2/2)
@slyborg I think this is a great point.
-
@silverpill 'Implemented' is not boolean, some FEPs have partial implementations, implementations of a prior draft or implementations that do the opposite of a MUST
-
@silverpill I agree, huge parts of the spec don't have enough interoperable implementations to justify them. However, this rule also means it's super hard to 'upstream' a FEP into the spec because it's hard to count implementations that do exactly what the FEP says.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@Figiverse the Figiverse !!! 😆🏆🙌
-
@DarioZanette no non sono arrivate a questi livelli, ma (su Twitter)una ragazza ha espresso (quello che è il mio stesso pensiero) la sua repulsione ad utilizzare questi dispositivi riutilizzabili e da lavare e subito sono arrivate ad attaccarla perché gli assorbenti inquinano.
La riflessione e poi stata la mia, con tutto l'inquinamento provocato dalle guerre in corso gli assorbenti sono una goccia nel mare.
-
-
-
https://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/ferrara/cronaca/mattoni-sotto-auto-furto-gomme-iz196far
Ci vuole un decretino mattoni!
E i vigili di Ferrara cosa ci stanno a fare, sindaco?
-
@GustavinoBevilacqua @Fabio @Alberto
saranno gli inventori del caramello
-
Magari si sarà confuso con https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
