I have just discovered an important difference between the FEP-E232 specification and your implementation.
-
I have just discovered an important difference between the FEP-E232 specification and your implementation. Is this intentional? In E232 a link object contains these elements:
"Type": "link","mediaType": "application/ld+json; profile=\"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams\"","href": "https://server.example/objects/123","name": "RE: https://server.example/objects/123"
Your example has these elements:
"type": "link","mediaType": "application/ld+json; profile=\"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams\"","href": "https://example.com/users/alice/statuses/1","rel": "https://misskey-hub.net/ns#_misskey_quote",
The
name
from E232 (although marked as "optional") is crucial for a visually nice embedding of the quote in the post. Implementations may replace the value of "name" within the content with the quoted object itself.I'm not sure about using
https://misskey-hub.net/ns#_misskey_quote
as a link relation. The original Misskey implementation of quoted posts works differently. It simply uses_misskey_quote
as a value in the note to point to the quoted element. (Although off the top of my head I think they now also usequoteUrl
, which is used by other implementations.I suggest concentrating on E232 and omitting this
rel
parameter. If you want compatibility with other implementations that haven't implemented E232 yet, sendingquoteUrl
as an additional value should be enough.