Notices by infinite love ⴳ (trwnh@mastodon.social), page 2

@erincandescent @julian @evan @mikedev @silverpill …then it makes sense that the collection ought to contain items sharing the same contextual grouping. it’s similar to how hashtags are content-addressed grouping, but less purposeful, and no one owns them. the key is that even if you can’t resolve anything out of whatever is in context, you can still use it for grouping by opaque string matching. so there’s clearly defined graceful fallback.

@erincandescent @julian @evan @mikedev @silverpill i don’t think “conversational thread” is a special semantic relationship, and i certainly don’t think it is equal or equivalent to a reply tree! the basis of 7888 is that context should be used for purposeful logical grouping, as it was intended and as it ended up being used in pleroma for years. an unresolvable opaque uri is 7888-compliant. so is a collection with an owner. so is anything else. but IF it is a collection,

@evan @erincandescent @julian @mikedev @silverpill what is the “thread relationship” and how does it differ from “contextual grouping”?

@evan i know this is a timely reference to what a certain platform is doing, but blocks in ActivityPub C2S don't prevent someone from fetching your public actor data, and also have no bearing on cached, replicated, or syndicated data viewable in remote services or applications (as popularized by the "instance" model in the fediverse) unless you federate the Block activity with S2S and hope that the remote service or application understands and respects that.

@julian @silverpill @erincandescent @thisismissem Security-wise all bets are off if you want to establish anything other than “the signature claims to be from this key, and the key claims to be owned by this actor, and the actor links back to the same key, so we can assume the actor’s controller is the signing party”

note that i said “actor’s controller” and not just “actor”. this is an important distinction. just like web keys are custodial, web actors are custodial too

@erincandescent @julian @thisismissem @silverpill it matters that the key claims to be owned by an actor, and that the actor claims to own that key. the actual cryptography is merely a formality to link the http request to the public key through the private key. a “fancy password” like julian said.

also also from freegeek twin cities

@darius @erincandescent @julian @evan there was probably a time when `context` could've gotten renamed in the same way that `scope` was renamed to `audience`, but we're about 10 years too late on that discussion

@darius @erincandescent @julian @evan well, the json-ld keyword has an @ in front of it for a reason: https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#syntax-tokens-and-keywords

id and type got aliased but they're really supposed to be @\id and @\type: https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/232

other point of confusion re: @\context vs context was overruled: https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/238

@evan @erincandescent @julian @darius I can leave this as a comment on the PR or the issue tracker, but my position is that "conversation tree" is entirely the wrong way to look at it, because a "conversation" and a "reply tree" are not the same thing. You can fork the conversation, you can reply to something in a different conversation, and you can have your post moved to a different conversation. I could define a property for it, but my intent was to gracefully degrade to using it for grouping

@silverpill @mikedev @julian "partial embedding" is a red herring. all embeddings are partial embeddings as far as you know. even fetching from the origin isn't guaranteed to respond with all statements/properties. (open world assumption, remember?) and you're going to have to fetch from origin anyway because you can't trust non-authoritative representations.

i think you'd be better off indexing the collections.

approximately zero people care about this but i am just now realizing that application/xrd+xml was never registered with the IANA https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

afaict, media types are supposed to be registered when something has specifically "define[d] a complete set of processing rules"

suffixes or "augmented subtypes" are supposed to indicate that your media type can also be "generically processed" as that +type. for example image/svg+xml indicates that it is an svg image, but that the encoding of svg is xml.

there don't seem to be any specific processing rules for AS2??? which implies it shouldn't be its own media type. but it is. oh well!

speaking of profiles vs media types: AS2-Core describes the AS2 format as a profile of JSON-LD but then *also* goes on to register an explicit application/activity+json media type

Why

i'm doing unrelated research on media subtype suffixes and comparing them to rel=profile or the `profile` parameter. that's how i discovered this

actually there is something funny here, and that is that if you believe "activity" is its own media format and not simply a profile of json(ld), then this implies the potential existence of application/activity+xml

*alfred coleman as eggman voice*: i'm making a callout post on my mastodon dot social. james snell,

@evan @erincandescent i'd definitely call those out as bugs!

@erincandescent erin how do you feel about a fep that defines a conformance profile describing some "social networking protocol" that fedi could actually reasonably comply with (with some minor behavioral changes to avoid choking on things like multiple types or expecting hardcoded specific types)

i keep waffling on whether it would actually be a good idea with a good outcome, or a colossal waste of time better spent on something else

@dansup

> I'm glad we have some formal organization to help steward the protocol

isn't this in theory the w3c and socialcg? swf doesn't steward the protocol.