Title generation and quote posts
Technical Discussion
1
Post
1
Autori
0
Visualizzazioni
-
renchap@oisaur.com 044f specifies the use of a link to the quoted post as fallback, hidden behind
.quote-inline.Right now Mastodon puts this top of post, and this interferes with title generation logic on NodeBB. Essentially the URL becomes the title, which is not ideal.
Any chance the class name could be upgraded to a MUST so I can code against it? Potentially other implementors could use different class names.
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
-
renchap@oisaur.com 044f specifies the use of a link to the quoted post as fallback, hidden behind .quote-inline.
Right now Mastodon puts this top of post, and this interferes with title generation logic on NodeBB. Essentially the URL becomes the title, which is not ideal.
Any chance the class name could be upgraded to a MUST so I can code against it? Potentially other implementors could use different class names.
-
renchap@oisaur.com 044f specifies the use of a link to the quoted post as fallback, hidden behind .quote-inline.
Right now Mastodon puts this top of post, and this interferes with title generation logic on NodeBB. Essentially the URL becomes the title, which is not ideal.
Any chance the class name could be upgraded to a MUST so I can code against it? Potentially other implementors could use different class names.
-
Mastodon has a concept called "pinned statuses", which is a special collection attached to a Person actor.
https://docs.joinmastodon.org/spec/activitypub/#featured
It wasn't readily known how this collection is updated and federated (not without code achaeology), but claire@social.sitedethib.com recently shared some additional info :smiley:
The actor itself will issue an Add activity targeting the collection with the status in object. This activity is sent to all followers of the actor. No activity is sent if the actor has no remote followers. A Remove is sent when a pinned post is unpinned.This is what the Add looks like:
{ "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "type": "Add", "actor": "https://example.org/users/testUser", "target": "https://example.org/users/testUser/collections/featured", "object": "https://example.org/users/testUser/statuses/115266412340579560" }The corresponding Remove is identical except for type, which is of course, Remove.
-
Oh okay. I wasn't sure about that since I don't think it's documented in the FEP, though it's been awhile since I've given it a read through.
-
only understood by Piefed? Not Lemmy
No, that's a Lemmy thing too.
-
rimu@piefed.social silverpill@mitra.social I gave this a bit more thought and I am coming around to the idea that Remove could work.
I am assuming that when Piefed sends Announce(Delete(Object)) this is only understood by Piefed? Not Lemmy (and certainly not NodeBB, yet)...
In that case, a move to a simpler Remove(target: context) signed and acted on by the community actor, would send a more explicit message that the object was removed from the community.
The "1b12-speaking" portion of it would be an Undo(Announce(Create)), although once again I am not even sure if that action is understood by Piefed/Lemmy.
-
@meduz I know, I’m looking for somebody who says “I have done all those experiments and this is the best setup”
