ActivityPub standardization is back!
General Discussion
1
Posts
1
Posters
1
Views
-
ActivityPub standardization is back! The #W3C just announced a new Working Group to evolve #ActivityPub and #ActivityStream and related standards! This is extremely good news. It's not like all the world's federated social media protocol problems were already solved! https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2026Jan/0000.html
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@bengo I regret losing your email. It was clearly important. I'm sorry.
-
@evan @julian @darius @dmitri this isn't the first time you've claimed to not receive an email I sent from gmail and got no undeliverability notice for. You should fix your self hosted mail setup.
Beyond that, I'm finding it hard to reconcile your public position that private email is not the right way to work on these things when you have sent me so many private emails e.g. about how I should sign an NDA with Facebook to come work with you and them on ActivityPub and ActivityStreams.
-
@bengo @julian @darius @dmitri I also think backwards compatibility is important. It would be catastrophic to announce an incompatible next version that doesn't work with the existing millions of users and tens of thousands of servers. If we add new features, like LOLA, they'd have to be compatible with the network as it is now.
-
ActivityPub standardization is back! The #W3C just announced a new Working Group to evolve #ActivityPub and #ActivityStream and related standards! This is extremely good news. It's not like all the world's federated social media protocol problems were already solved! https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2026Jan/0000.html
-
@bengo @julian @darius @dmitri I don't think private email is the right way to work on ActivityPub or Activity Streams, anyways. If you think something went wrong with one of the errata or the editors' draft, you should definitely open an issue on GitHub or post to the public-swicg mailing list. You've been active in those discussions, so that's probably a great way to talk about it.
-
@bengo @julian @darius @dmitri That doesn't ring a bell. Checking my email archives, I see your announcement of activitypub-testing on 15 Jan and you declined the AP issue triage on 17 Jan.
-
@bengo @evan @julian I do not agree with your analysis of the situation post, say, January 2025 when I started to get involved in things. Prior to that (esp regarding CG chair selection) I was not involved and can't make any claims. My goal here is to get the standard to a place where its current shortcomings are addressed, and it is more widely implemented. (I'm trying to stay neutral on what those shortcomings are. I want to the CG to figure that out and make proposals alongside the WG.)
