How do we handle Groups (Reconciling FEP-400e and FEP-1b12)?
from angus@socialhub.activitypub.rocks to swicg-threadiverse-wg@community.nodebb.org on 18 Apr 2024 11:22
https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ap/object/d6d57ebe611ff9c77c15f3f272cc0046
from angus@socialhub.activitypub.rocks to swicg-threadiverse-wg@community.nodebb.org on 18 Apr 2024 11:22
https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ap/object/d6d57ebe611ff9c77c15f3f272cc0046
This is a topic to track the FEP-400e and FEP-1b12 reconciliation, aka "How do we handle Groups". I've made this a wiki to let implementers describe their current status quo https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/1b12/fep-1b12.md https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/400e/fep-400e.md
threaded - newest
Oh hi. I'm not very active on this forum lately but I received an email about this topic, only now.
My main idea with FEP-400e was to avoid posting group posts to one's own profile at all costs. I see
Announce
-style groups as mostly a crutch for wider compatibility (there are even bots like this one that work on top of the Mastodon API, you mention it and it boosts). As I design things starting from the UX, I couldn't use anything that usesAnnounce
, because that would make my desired UX nearly impossible.Now for some other implementations "not posting to profile" might not be a concern at all. Lemmy is modeled after Reddit, which does show your posts and comments on your profile front and center. And that's fine. And it's also fine to be incompatible; you can't exactly imagine Mastodon and a phpBB forum interoperating in any meaningful capacity simply because their user experiences are so disparate.
My other idea was that it's not just walls — it's a generic mechanism of creating objects into someone else's collections, while also relinquishing full control over them. My FEP explicitly says that the collection owner can delete someone else's objects contained in the collection. I will soon start working on photo albums. Those will exist in groups too, and the way they will work is that everyone who has access to the group could upload new photos. So again, someone else's collection into which others add things.
Great to see you here again!
grishka:True! Albeit, I think the general consensus here is that there isn't an inherent incompatibility between 400e and 1b12. The question is more how an implementor approaches processing a Group actor's activities. @trwnh helpfully lays out the possibilities above
https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/how-do-we-handle-groups-reconciling-fep-400e-and-fep-1b12/4088/19?u=angus
The point of this topic and the spreadsheet I just shared is not to contrast the two standards. It's more of an empirical reference of sorts for implmentors.
grishka:Well, I might slightly disagree with you there as Discourse, NodeBB and other forum-like implementations in the #activitypub:threadiverse-wg interoperate with Mastodon
silverpill:Thanks!
silverpill:I think this is where the Discourse plugin will end up too.
Actually, now that I think of it, the Discourse plugin does partially support 400e as it will recognise a Collection in the
target
property. However it doesn't processAdd
itions to such a collection, so saying it supports 400e is premature.This is where there is some potential to trailblaze as the other half of the equation might be implementing 7888, aka a resolvable
context
.I have a feeling that context and target would work well to point to the same thing.
@angus@socialhub.activitypub.rocks said in How do we handle Groups (Reconciling FEP-400e and FEP-1b12)?:
My assumption was that the surveys and spreadsheets would be helpful to guide discussion at WG meetings, but eventually lead to a SocialCG report of non-normative findings, followed by a recommendation for new implementors.