Best-practices for AP vocabulary extensions?

[trwnh]

@stevebate

if someone followed that advice today (e.g. for the ubiquitous toot context), most servers would not accept the messages.

@stevebate

I wonder how developers can be convinced to change their implementations to use this practice.

Good point. There’s definitely some work that needs to be done by existing implementations in order to be less fragile, and I should probably call those out explicitly. As you say,

@stevebate

It might be useful to organize the practices by publisher/consumer roles.

I’m thinking of the following classifications:

• LD-aware producer
• LD-aware consumer
• LD-unaware consumer
• LD-unaware producer
• a secret fifth option for current implementers who are neither aware nor unaware, but rather handle things incorrectly based on their (mis)interpretation of LD

@stevebate

Would it make sense to include advice for documenting extensions (structure, behavior, required/optional properties, functional/nonfunctional properties, cardinality, valid value sets/enums, etc.) and for versioning extensions?

Probably? It would be a separate h2 section, I think. The overall structure of the draft is not final at all, as I’m still trying to gather best practices before trying to come up with a structure.