julian:

It's odd because it doesn't work with NodeBB (I woke up this morning missing 4 replies); pulling one should've gotten all of them but I had to pull them one by one (and one of @trwnh@socialhub.activitypub.rocks's still can't make it in).

This is likely related to the problem I described in another thread:

angus:

We agree on a normative approach to the use of context. <— Discourse, NodeBB, Wordpress and others essentially agree on this already, but it would be helpful to clarify and include folks from Mastodon.

I recently published a FEP that documents different implementations of context collection: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/f228/fep-f228.mdDidn't know that Discourse also implements it. Just tested it - everything works as expected

heluecht:

I suggest concentrating on E232 and omitting this rel parameter.

FEP-e232 doesn't recommend any particular rel parameter because it is intended to support a wide variety of use cases, not just quotes. Some implementers decided to use https://misskey-hub.net/ns#_misskey_quote relation type to indicate that link is actually a quote. That URI was chosen because Misskey is the first (or one of the first) Fediverse platforms to implement quote posts.

I think standardizing that convention in this new proposal is a good idea.

Claire:

ActivityPub defines Undo as undoing side-effects, not removing the activity itself. Here, we would want the stamp to disappear.

I agree, activities shouldn't be Delete-ed. However, some implementations may rely on target being reserved to activities. For example, at some point there was a discussion about "duck typing" activities by checking for ( actor and object) and (actor and target) property combinations. I am not aware of any implementations doing this, but I think it would be prudent to use a different property. Perhaps it could be generator (awkward, but its domain and range include Object)? Or you can just add a warning to the FEP to make implementers aware that such use or target is not recommended by AS.

Claire:

A “quote post” is represented as an object with an Object Link (FEP-e232) to a “quoted object” using https://misskey-hub.net/ns#_misskey_quote as a link relation.

Claire:

Quote approval stamps are objects of the type QuoteAuthorization (http://joinmastodon.org/ns#QuoteAuthorization).

Claire:

The object attribute MUST reference the accepted quote post, the target attribute MUST reference the quoted object

According to ActivityStreams Vocabulary, the domain of target is Activity. I suggest replacing QuoteAuthorization object with QuoteAuthorize activity, or maybe even with a standard Add activity where target is a quotes collection (similar to shares).

Claire:

An approval stamp can be revoked by Deleteing the stamp.

If approval stamp is an activity, the approver could Undo it.

Claire:

the quote post author MUST send a Quote (http://joinmastodon.org/ns#Quote) activity to the author of the quote post,

I guess this is a typo, and the text should be "to the author of the quoted post"?

Claire:

The quote post author MAY wait until they receive an Approve or Reject activity before sending the post’s Create activity to its intended audience.

Claire:

If the author of the quote receives an Approve activity, they MUST add a reference to its result in the approvedBy property of the relevant object link.

In the previous section you talked about Accept(Quote) activity. Does Approve serve a different purpose, or it was supposed to be Accept too?

Claire:

If the quote post is considered acceptable, the original author MUST reply with an Accept activity with the Quote activity as its object

The use of Accept/Approve and Reject activities appears to be aligned with FEP-5624. There is another approach to managing conversations, which comes from Streams and Hubzilla: Conversation Containers.

The main difference between FEP-5624 and Conversation Conversation containers is in the scope of authority. If I understand it correctly, in FEP-5624 each reply is independent and interactions with it are controlled by its author. In Conversation Containers, the whole conversation is managed by the conversation owner (usually the author of a top-level post). This model has several benefits:

• It enables synchronization of edits, deletions, replies, likes, boosts and other activities between conversation participants. Quote can be synchronized too.
• Conversation owner can control the scope of the conversation and prevent its widening.
• Containers can be used to implement groups and circles.

What do you think of it?

In this model, the Quote activity would be Add-ed to a collection activities representing conversation history, instead of being Accept-ed.