Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   @reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman: (reiver@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Mar-2025 19:05:13 JST @reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:

   • Darius Kazemi

   @darius

   During your session today at #ATmosphereConf , I think you mentioned that DIDs were on your wishlist for ActivityPub.

   If I understood you accurately —

   Were there particular DID methods that you found interesting?

   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Mar-2025 19:05:11 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi

     @darius @reiver What would you like to do with them?

     DIDs have been in use on Fediverse for quite some time, first in identity proofs (this is like rel=me but with DIDs), and then as a foundation of ActivityPub-native nomadic identity.

   • Embed this notice
     Darius Kazemi (darius@friend.camp)'s status on Monday, 24-Mar-2025 19:05:12 JST Darius Kazemi

     in reply to

     @reiver nope! Other people are way better informed than me and there are approximately 7.6 million DID methods last I looked. did-webvh seems nice but that's not a strongly held opinion I have

   • Embed this notice
     @reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman: (reiver@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Mar-2025 19:13:58 JST @reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi
     • silverpill

     @silverpill @darius

     This URL seems to be 404'ing.

     https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-method-key/

     (Linked to from here: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/ef61/fep-ef61.md )

     .

   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Mar-2025 19:13:58 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi

     @reiver @darius It looks like they moved the spec to https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-key-spec/

     I'll update the FEP. Thanks!

   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Mar-2025 03:23:26 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi

     @darius @reiver I am not aware of other meanings of "feature x is already on the Fediverse". Could you elaborate?

   • Embed this notice
     Darius Kazemi (darius@friend.camp)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Mar-2025 03:23:27 JST Darius Kazemi

     in reply to

     • silverpill

     @silverpill @reiver I've read the Portable Objects FEP. It seems okay and I don't have enough domain expertise to have an opinion on its specifics. There are not many implementations listed in the "implementations" section though.

     I don't like the framing of "feature x is already on the Fediverse" when all that means is "more than zero software implementations support it".

   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Mar-2025 04:30:35 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi

     @darius Both identity proofs and nomadic identity are useful even if the vast majority of servers don't support them, because they can be implemented without breaking federation, and because communities often form around implementations, and people within those communities can enjoy new features as they are rolled out.
     Of course, utility increases with the number of supporting servers. We are working on that.

   • Embed this notice
     Darius Kazemi (darius@friend.camp)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Mar-2025 04:30:36 JST Darius Kazemi

     in reply to

     • silverpill

     @silverpill @reiver if only a very small number of servers have a feature it is not terribly real. Especially when it comes to features regarding federation the meaningful existence of a feature is determined by interop. If say Brave browser is the sole implementer of an RFC it is not useful or meaningful for me to say that RFC feature is on the Web.

     There are degrees of reality when we talk about nascent technology, these degrees matter

     clacke@libranet.de is my main likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Darius Kazemi (darius@friend.camp)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Mar-2025 04:30:36 JST Darius Kazemi

     in reply to

     • silverpill

     @silverpill put another way: if the average user is 95% likely to land on a server that doesn't support some feature, it is not useful for me to say "Fediverse users get access to feature x", I need to say something like "users of particular implementations of Fediverse software get access to feature x"

     I know it might sound like I am splitting hairs but I am very concerned with how we represent the capabilities of the fediverse to people who have never and will never know what a FEP is

     clacke@libranet.de is my main likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     dilbert 1 (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Mar-2025 04:34:50 JST dilbert 1

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi
     • silverpill
     @darius @silverpill isn't the fediverse a protocol substrate that you build actual networks on top of, it's unreasonable for fediverse apps to all work with each other
   • Embed this notice
     Darius Kazemi (darius@friend.camp)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Mar-2025 04:40:54 JST Darius Kazemi

     in reply to

     • silverpill
     • dilbert 1

     @sun @silverpill ActivityPub is a protocol substrate. The fediverse is more than ActivityPub, it is the network and its capabilities and its people

     dilbert 1 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     bumblefudge (by_caballero@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Mar-2025 05:25:23 JST bumblefudge

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi
     • silverpill

     @silverpill @darius forgive me for being so relentlessly editorial but maybe there is a practical outcome of this discussion, like a style guide or terminological/editorial convention that could be mentioned in the FEP-a4ed? i agree that there are stages of adoption and "seamlessly extends without breaking federation or degrading UX for users of other implements" is a property worth naming (and perhaps even requiring of FEP-defined extenions!)

   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Mar-2025 05:25:23 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi
     • bumblefudge

     @by_caballero @darius I think this shouldn't be a requirement, because implementation of some proposals, especially those related to moderation, might require breaking changes. Reply controls, for example.

   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Mar-2025 05:29:55 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi
     • bumblefudge

     @by_caballero @darius As a general recommendation - sure, this is what we should aim for. FEP-a4ed lists improving interoperability as one of the goals of FEP process.