#fediverse #fedimtl
Fediverso
3
Posts
2
Posters
0
Views
-
@evan lollll this is what someone said when I recommended fedi! Like “I just always get caught up on the word fed”
-
@evan lollll this is what someone said when I recommended fedi! Like “I just always get caught up on the word fed”
@Recalcitrant I mean, it's more of a confederacy than a federal system, anyway, but thankfully we didn't call it the confediverse when it started
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@Recalcitrant I mean, it's more of a confederacy than a federal system, anyway, but thankfully we didn't call it the confediverse when it started
-
@evan lollll this is what someone said when I recommended fedi! Like “I just always get caught up on the word fed”
-
-
Warm up the fire! We're LIVE!
Fireside Fedi - Episode 77 - Lorenzo Ceccotti - LRNZ - Geist Maschine, SuperAmici
#owncast #streaming #interview #fediverse #fedi #people #show #firesidefedi #FsF
-
@tommi questo potrebbe interessarti...
-
La European Civil Society Week 2026 è un evento molto interessante, si può partecipare anche online.
La sessione intitolata "Media and digital resilience as safeguards of democracy" sembra di particolare interesse e rilevanza per gli abitanti del #fediverso
Ci sono anche sessioni su come organizzare petizioni europee (European Citizens' Initiative) per contribuire a scrivere l'agenda delle istituzioni europee.
Prendete e strimmatene tutti.
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/agenda/our-events/events/civil-society-week-2026
-
@hongminhee@hollo.social ah yes, implements would be a good thing to support. It would allow you to cache the value temporarily (maybe a quick recheck every 7 days or so) so as to avoid needing a double knock at all.
Caching based on first knock success also works.
I wonder if sending HTTP 426 is doable too... 🤔
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Status/426
-
@julian@activitypub.space That's a fair point; honestly, right now there's no reliable way to know. If a server supports both RFC 9421 and draft cavage, and you lead with cavage, you can't infer anything about its RFC 9421 support from a successful response.
The workaround I applied is intentionally temporary, just to keep things working while Bonfire instances catch up with the fix. Once they do, I'll revert firstKnock back to RFC 9421.
The longer-term answer to your question might be FEP-844e, which proposes a capability discovery mechanism—servers could explicitly advertise which specifications they implement (including RFC 9421) via an Application object. That would make the guesswork unnecessary. It's still a draft, but worth keeping an eye on.
