Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale

Why not make actors portable too?

It's the entire evolution not revolution concept. Sending portable objects from an existing https actor is kind of an intermediate step, where one doesn't have to change everything.

Can one use this combined with a HTTPS actor? e.g.

{ "@context": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "https://w3id.org/security/data-integrity/v1", "https://w3id.org/fep/ef61" ], "type": "Note", "id": "ap://did:key:z6MkrJVnaZkeFzdQyMZu1cgjg7k1pZZ6pvBQ7XJPt4swbTQ2/objects/dc505858-08ec-4a80-81dd-e6670fd8c55f", "attributedTo": "http://host.example/actor", "content": "Hello!", "to": [ "http://host.example/followers", "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "proof": {"...": "..."}}

would be a message (with corresponding Create). http://host.example/actor would acknowledge did:key:z6MkrJVnaZkeFzdQyMZu1cgjg7k1pZZ6pvBQ7XJPt4swbTQ2 by having it in its assertionMethod.

This would lead to portable objects without portable actors. In particular objects that don't need to live on servers.