I’m curious what the approaches to extending the ActivityPub vocabulary are ( Activity Vocabulary).
I’m also curious about extending the syntax of composing documents.
@@group@server - like roles in discord or subreddits, but cross-server memberships.
##Topic@server - wiki categories/links, a way to be specific about what you mean when you tag something
I’m biased because both would be handy for distributed wikis and for memberships.
Does that mean that a “group” would extend the same mechanic as a user, or be a completely new mechanic?
Should a topic lookup be more similar to looking up a hashtag, or because it’d need the @@group/@server lookup logic, is it more like a group (if a group maintains the wiki page)
##SomeTopic@@maintainers@homeserver - where hashtags don’t have group maintainership, and individual person’s posts remain with them, where the posts of a group stay with them.
Welcome to social hub unboring.
I wrote a proposal to formalize a process to extend the vocabulary based on FEPs: fep/fep-2e40.md at main - fep - Codeberg.org
Proposal is still under discussion for some of the technical details, but I expect it to be formalized at one point. I also want to spend some time to see if I can write tests for the context.
Generally, it’s easy to extend the json-ld @context and thus the vocabulary. One can simply add terms. Mastodon does this by just inserting a big dictionary into the @context.
I unfortunately do not understand what you mean, or your examples following it. Maybe you mean something else than I do with a document. I would mean some type of json-ld object having an id. What do you mean?
Again welcome to SocialHub!
You mean inline syntax, right? Just wanted to mention the Agora bot here. You follow it, and then it parses your toots for hashtags, but also wiki-like markup such as
[[some term]], which it transfers to a shared knowledgebase.