Piero Bosio Web Site

Invitiamo le donne e gli uomini, le associazioni e gli Enti Locali che vogliono la #pace a partecipare all’Assemblea dell’Onu dei Popoli che si svolgerà a #Perugia dal 9 al 12 ottobre 2025.

@blaine @cwebber this is the AP Webfinger profile, right? I remember this.

I just re-read the issue comment history. It's weird that I didn't reply anywhere in here, given that I was tagged. I am sorry that your idea didn't get into the doc, even as a future enhancement. It seems like a useful feature and part of the point of Webfinger.

I opened some new issues on that repo recently. I'm going to reopen this one, if you don't mind. It seems like a really good topic for discussion.

@cwebber I actually do like the PDS part of bluesky, and I like the DID part except for the fact that it's fake. PDSes that can talk to each other via activitypub sounds highly desirable to me.

@cwebber Indeed, global like counts and trending hashtags are only useful for the advertising industry.

@julian fair enough, just expected you not to see it due to your profile text 😅

@blaine @cwebber Your take on the topology is spot on, and there's a traceable lineage from polled RSS to pushed RSS to OStatus to ActivityPub. I think AP supports innovation through different schemas, but it really requires supporting the AP API. See https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams/Primer/Extensions for examples.

@evan @cwebber I feel like one day we should have a beer again. My "same picture" take has been (for many, many years) that ActivityPub is two-way RSS with usable identity (even if the standard doesn't admit it). XMPP is the same, and the main innovation from atproto is actually-malleable schemas. Private data will bring it in-line with AP, while perf. optimizations will work the other direction. All asides, though: I care about what the people want, not what the computers want. ❤️

@evan @cwebber the discussion of protocols is often deeply embedded in the standards world, and protocols are defined by standards.

Really sorry - one of the documents that is referenced in the link you've shared was the last time I tried to engage, and the experience was *horrendous*. My good-faith contributions were flat-out rejected by an opinionated tech mini-lord, and your name is on the doc. That's not "protocol development" or consensus building.