Yes, but I'm not sure that's relevant.
-
Yes, but I'm not sure that's relevant. The comment I was responding to (and support) says:
The biggest problem I see is that current wording make it sound like any server not understanding the FEP is automatically malicious. But if it’s optional, it’s not malicious to not have it.
My point is that a user directing their user agent, connected to a server that supports this FEP, to create a post that links to another post instead of quoting it (assuming the user agent/server API makes the distinction) is also not in and of itself malicious activity.
You write:
But these kinds of transformations are out-of-scope here. As far as the protocol level is concerned,
contentis an opaque string that may be parsed as HTML by default.But in your next post you suggest:
C collapses the post under a clickthrough warning, [...] You might also consider parsing the Link tag and stripping the placeholder but refusing to render the embedded preview
To me those appear to be examples of transformations you earlier believed to be out of scope.
Also, I find it hard to agree that concerns that -- may be -- Mastodon specific are out of scope for this discussion, when the preamble for the pre-FEP starts
Quote Posts are an often-requested feature for Mastodon
and goes on to say
This is a work-in-progress document describing Mastodon’s proposed way of representing quote posts
And as I said upthread, "some of my questions below are driven by user experience considerations. It’s my experience that failing to consider the desired end user experience early enough in the process can result in specs that are not suitable".
