thisismissem:This sounds like a wonderful FEP! This article published two weeks ago mentions the issue (highlight mine) ..Another example I personally encountered was a frustrating issue while implementing ActivityPub for this blog: updating a post propagated to Lemmy but not Mastodon. Despite the Update activity being accepted, Mastodon silently rejected it unless the updated timestamp changed—a logical but unofficial requirement. Developers must track down subtle implementation details that aren't formally documented, significantly complicating adoption and usage.https://chrastecky.dev/technology/activity-pub-the-good-the-bad-and-the-uglyI'd write it off as a Mastodon-ism, but it's actually better to have that property present, so now it is.So one that's becoming de-facto standard. Ideally if Mastodon introduces such logic, it is up to them to remember to inform the broader developer community via a FEP.---Aside: "If all we have is a Note .. "Overall it is such a pity that everything is to be a Note or else.. And the default pragmatic urge of most devs is to assign app-specific business logic to an existing or custom property within it, to create all the behavioral flavors. And then call it a day "my app works" and throw the protocol decay out in the ecosystem.There are other improvements regarding revision control as long-time open issues, see e.g. @trwnh's https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/exposing-edit-history-via-activitystreams/2930 (mastodon issue # dd. January 2023). In this issue @stevebate suggests previousversions from the ForgeFed Vocabulary.What do we do when we "Edit a Note"? Is using the CRUD of ActivityStreams really the best option, or are we really "Creating a Revision". Shouldn't ActivityPub have a proper way to Revision Control across the board?If my new Fediverse app included both editable and non-editable posts, how I'd hack that in on top of the current mechanism? Just pondering this. It seems we go out of our way not to use the extension mechanism of ActivityPub as it was intended to be used, cramming everything in NoteCrud​. Is that official best-practice for the future fediverse now, I wonder.Many more examples seen in discussions. The ActivityPub specs state that you may ditch JSON-LD for plain JSON, but doesn't say that the whole idea of a semantic type model should be thrown out of the window as well. In https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/distinguish-between-posts-and-direct-messages/2283 the example is people going out of their way not to define ChatMessage in favor of Note + property-logic.

@jsonculverhouse@flipboard.social yes, that's right. If a Flipboard post is organized within magazines, then including the magazine in the cc will allow recipient software to correctly slot the post with the magazine. So not only would it fix the issue for NodeBB, it'd also fix it for Lemmy, PieFed, Mbin, etc.

@hamishcampbell @ricmac @evanprodromou @julian Thanks for your kind words. I won't interrupt your discussion with Julian anymore. I hope you reach some accord!

@rglullis@communick.news, a post from 7 days ago never made it to my instance: https://forum.wedistribute.org/topic/bb5ed1a1-1fbc-4725-9770-c55303e78ccb/activitypub-5.6.0-for-wordpress-just-shipped https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/fediverse@forum.wedistribute.org Seems to be similar for you: https://communick.news/c/fediverse@forum.wedistribute.org

@thisismissem damn @Sarahp killing it with the fediverse coverage lately!

@trwnh@mastodon.social sure, makes sense. That to/cc already exist in the wild as arrays means one less thing to worry about with multiple cross posts.

@obenland@mastodon.social wonderful, good work!

@raphael@mastodon.communick.com great!

@julian Thanks, tells me what I needed to know. Even on Mastodon I only really use Hashtags on posts and not on replies so that tracks for personal usage.

@kirk@social.coop just wanted to drop a note that your two issues have not been forgotten

Yep, everything works!

I think you're right

@Kichae said in Organizing the many worlds you're part of through NodeBB: > But man, do I ever desperately want the bulletin board experience in /world. It really feels like what the fediverse was always meant to be, to me. I've been inspired by some teaser images from @johnonolan@mastodon.xyz's Ghost blog, which physically segregates microblogging content apart from long-form content (e.g. blogs). Forum topics fit somewhere in the middle, although since title and body are present we tend to align more with long-form content. It's a really neat idea I'd like to play around with more.

@liaizon@social.wake.st @computersandblues@post.lurk.org that particular forum is not hosted by us, so we don't have any contact for them

@AltCode One significant potential issues with listing all followed categories in the same kind of layout as /categories is the below-the-fold effect, or the page-2 effect as one might have called it in earlier times. Whatever categories end up falling below a certain scroll distance will just never been seen by most users. If you follow a lot of categories, the ones that end up closer to the bottom of the list than the top will just end up ignored. It doesn't encourage participation, and it also doesn't discourage following a lot of categories that you don't actually care about. And follow relationships are very important under ActivityPub, since they dictate content flow. Bringing in a lot of remote content that no one on the local forum is actually reading or engaging with is very wasteful. An easily accessible compact list might be better, with different sorting options so that users can choose to have categories with new content float to the top. Usually with forum categories, you want the ordering to be static, but that expectation won't necessarily be there for just a list.

I asked in that issue whether Lemmy finds community via to/cc (it does). Does PieFed do the same? Yes - PieFed does the same. It looks in 'audience', then 'cc', then 'to'. It has to, to support all the platforms that haven't adopted 'audience. It's a convenient field, but PieFed won't be affected if Lemmy goes through with removing it. Would this also open up the possibility of a topic/context being part of multiple audiences/communities? Not at present. If you do something like cc: [community1, community2] it will only go to community1 (on both Lemmy and PieFed). There's so many activities that are effectively duplicates, both in normal operation and when platforms are bugged (both Lemmy and Mastodon have gone through phases of sending the same activity multiple times), that you need a way to make sure you're only processing one. On PieFed, this is done by having a UNIQUE constraint of the 'ap_id' column of the Post table (the ap_id of your post is https://community.nodebb.org/post/103806), so it means you can't have the same post in more than one community.

Just wanna add to this convo that we've been working with interaction policies in GoToSocial for a while now, and the protocol extension described here is extensible to include a canQuote property on an interaction policy: https://docs.gotosocial.org/en/latest/federation/interaction_policy/Reply, Like, and Announce controls and approvals etc are already running in GoToSocial since v0.17.0 last year. It would be pretty neato if Mastodon could reuse the interaction policy properties and approval flow for quote posts, insofar as that's possible. Have discussed this in the Mastodon discord with Claire as well, but just putting it here too.