@silverpill why does a "primary language" need to be specified? I think that if there is such a thing, it should be the language in which the client views the object or otherwise none of them should have special importance.
@hongminhee yes, I guess. However why did you consider the recipient as the right entity to do the signing?
In my mind, this action means that they "vetted" the received activity and decided to forward it, when in actuality it's the server that does both of those things. Ie, in my opinion, the server - through its instance actor - is the entity that assumes the burden of attestating the validity of the forwarded Activity.
I think that servers operating activities on behalf of actors, without these actors explicitly performing an action is a breach of trust between the two.
1/ signed by the instance actor - to decouple key verification from processing the activities (and add a modicum of anonymity on behalf of whom the request is done) 2/ No preferredUsername because naming things is hard (and the instance is named through its url) 3/ mixed keys, well, I changed the instance key to mastodon compatible a while back
Feb 08 21:46:12 DBG Starting dissemination to remote collections. log=processing Feb 08 21:46:12 WRN Request did not meet this resource's requirements. iri=https://mitra.social/@silverpill/inbox log=client status="405 Method Not Allowed" Feb 08 21:46:12 WRN Unable to disseminate activity invalid status received: 405 log=processing Feb 08 21:46:12 INF Pushed to remote actor's collection https://mitra.social/@silverpill/inbox log=processing Feb 08 21:46:12 DBG Finished dissemination to remote collections. log=processing Feb 08 21:46:12 INF All OK! log=fedbox
@silverpill so I'm not missing anything, just people wanting to overcomplicate things. Sigh.
Consent is not a thing that should be encouraged through non server-side enfored mechanisms because (as we can see plenty today) bad faith actors care not about such things.
Therefore a flag on an actor/object is useless because it requires that crawlers obey it, and again, they can not be trusted to do that.
In my opinion offering this as a solution to end-users is just snake oil.
@silverpill does anyone justify in their FEPs _why_ there is a need for additional properties when ActivityPub provides multiple ones in the form of the To, Bto, CC, BCC recipients, and of the Audience one?
These form a perfect basis for access control lists and I haven't seen anything that convinced me that it's not enough combined with OAuth2 tokens for C2S and HTTP-Signatures for S2S.
> The simple fact is: Adding another node to the Fediverse is harmful to the health of the network.
@helge you are very far from that being "a fact". Personally I doubt you could bring any arguments to make it even in the realm of "non-controversial".
@steve I don't really understand what @silverpill wants to underscore with that FEP.
In my software I am using something like his core types for actual data types, but the differences are mostly in behaviour a server/client has in relation to them. Ie, what can one "do" when encountering such an object, and that's better guided by looking at their data "shapes". The properties common to the Object type can be used for "object things": display name, content, use URL, etc. The extra properties for Actor, can be used for actor things: addressing. The properties for Collections: for retrieval, etc.
@silverpill I think Actor should be considered a core type (for the purposes of ActivityPub) just because the whole of the ActivityPub specification is based on it and its structure.
Mostly a programmer.Implementing #ActivityPub in the #Go programming language.Current projects: * #GoActivityPub - a library to use ActivityPub in Go. * #FedBOX - a generic ActivityPub service supporting the client to server API. * #brutalinks - a link aggregator inspired by (old) reddit, hacker news and lobste.rs built on top of FedBOX. * #oni - a single user ActivityPub server with minimal fuss.My posts are mostly related to ActivityPub and web development.