Notices by Raphael Lullis (raphael@mastodon.communick.com)

@evan

I know it's not an option, but I'm guessing "none of them", because what would be the point for them? They are all too focused on replicating their closed counterparts

@_elena @evan

Is this DWeb you are talking about: https://dwebcamp.org/berlin-2026/ ?

And thank you @evan for the ADAPT name suggestion. :)

This started as a #getfedihired post, but ended up a little bit too long for that...

https://raphael.lullis.net/adapt-activitypub/

In short, I'm looking for a company (or companies) that could be interested in investing in this vision for the social web. Please spread around.

@silverpill

The crux of the issue is that we shouldn't need to talk about "your FEP" when we are talking about "servers focused on implementing the ActivityPub API". The spec as is *is enough*. You are moving the goal posts by pushing a definition of "generic server" when it doesn't need to,and you are creating a "No True Scottsman" by saying that implementation X, Y or Z is "incompatible" with ActivityPub API.

@trwnh @mariusor

@silverpill

> I think FEP-1b12 Announce is not compatible with ActivityPub. It has different side effects, doesn't update shares collection.

Why?

Updating the shares collection is orthorgonal to the behavior expected from a Group actor that claims to support 1b12.

Sure, you can say that if the server does not update the shares collection, it's not fully compliant with AP APi, but there is nothing a Lemmy server to add every activity to the shares collection.

@mariusor

@silverpill @mariusor

> The behavior of Offer activity is not described in ActivityPub

You can still take the document and place in the target inboxes, leaving to the *client* to figure out what to do with it.

You don't need to describe the specific case if the general case (activities must be placed in the target inbox) is enough.

Is this your objection when you are talking about "Generic Servers"? Because if that is the case then I can definitely argue that my server is it.

@silverpill

> generic server needs to maintain collections.

If you are talking about "any arbitrary collection beyond followers/following/inbox/outbox/shares/likes". I'll disagree with you.

@julian @mariusor

@silverpill

> But then you want to introduce context collection. And then 50 other extensions. How to do that without special-casing every one of them?

You don't! An extension is an extension. A Generic server only needs to support the base protocol. Extensions are optional, not a requirement.

@julian @mariusor

@silverpill

@mariusor

Also, reading FEP-aea97 and I don't see anything there that my modest little server made with a "dynamic language" doesn't do already.

And It's not even like what I am doing is novel or incredibly diffiicult. If you spent a little time embracing RDF and JSON-LD, you could take a look at what Vocata did and you'd see how easy it can be implement the AP API.

@silverpill

> Mastodon supports all standard activities and has a wide variety of clients.

What happens when you send a "Offer" message to an actor on Mastodon? Can they accept it?

Can I create a group actor on Mastodon? Can I use this actor to boost other actor's posts and have it visible on a Lemmy client?

How can a Mastodon client ask the server to get a collection of all images with an specific tag?

@mariusor

@silverpill

I'm really not following this logic: you are saying "a generic HTTP server should be able to serve WebDAV requests".

Yes, HTTP servers should be able to serve WebDAV requests, *provided* they implement the extension.

It doesn't mean that they *have* to implement the extension. And an HTTP server that does not support the extension does not make non-HTTP compliant.

@mariusor @steve @evan

@silverpill @steve @evan

I don't follow: how does that relate to the "ActivityPub API" if the activity is "arbitrary" and not defined by ActivityPub, not using AS2 vocabulary?

Isn't that like saying that we can't use HTTP as a protocol because an HTTP server doesn't know what to do with verbs defined on, e.g, WebDAV?

@evan @silverpill @steve

Maybe I am way over my head, but this seems like *exactly* what I am building right now and I'm not really building anything outside of ActivityPub C2S?

I mean... Yes, my current client assumes some specific profile for OAuth and the client will need a proxy to get some data remote servers (to bypass authorized fetch, or to resolve documents from transient activities), but doesn't seem to me that anything I am doing is outside of AP's scope?

@liaizon @smallcircles @django @evan

https://activitypub.mushroomlabs.com is the project site. dev.alien.cool is just my dev deployment (please be gentle)

@rglullis

This message brought to you by a browser extension that works as a linked data browser and by the Django ActivityPub Toolkit implementing C2S!

@evan , I think you will like this.

@silverpill

The problem is rarely in parsing as2 context, but dealing with how different implementations decide to create projections from the data.

Take a simple poll. The 3 diffferent servers I saw were generating the text, the choices, and the replies collection in completely different ways. Without JSON-LD, each separate system would be fighting to figure out how to present the data.

@hongminhee @mariusor

@silverpill @hongminhee @mariusor

I also *strongly* disagree with the idea that working with JSON-LD is worse. JSON-LD avoids me having to hand-roll json-schema validators for each separate implementation. JSON-LD lets me think only in terms of "how do I map this term to my internal system".

@evan

> You can't use abbreviated versions of the object.

Why not? I would expect the signature in a document only to authenticate the document, not as an intrument to validated the objects referenced in the document.

@mariusor

Depends on your definition of "malicious", but there are servers offering "community migration" that works by taking all the objects from one actor and rewriting as their own and changing the to/audience fields. Somehow this rubs me the wrong way.

@evan

I mean "using something like Linked Data signatures, so that anyone can verify the authenticity of the message even if it server is not around anymore"