Desired changes for a future revision of ActivityPub and ActivityStreams

[silverpill]

@trwnh

To summarize, we can break changes up into three categories:

1. minor corrections and clarifications
2. backwards-compatible changes and progressive enhancements
3. backwards-incompatible breaking changes

I think ActivityPub spec is mostly good as it is.

1. Minor corrections and clarifications are very welcome. In particular, new version of the spec needs to somehow address common misconceptions such as “ActivityPub requires JSON-LD” and “identities are attached to domain names”.
2. Some requirements can be relaxed to enable new kinds of applications. New protocol features can be added, but only if there’s an overwhelming support from implementers (only HTTP signatures and Webfinger qualify as such).
3. No backwards-incompatible changes. ActivityPub should be treated similarly to other widely used web standards.