Documenting federation behavior in a semi-standard way?

[darius]

Is Event an actor after all? I’ve only ever seen it in the wild in Friendica, and there it’s used as an attachment to a post. I was going to have events myself so representing them in ActivityPub is still an open question. I personally was thinking about a Group with an Event in its attachments . Event isn’t an actor as per the spec, it’s an “object”.

An Event is not an actor in my implementation. I try to be careful in the document about capital-E Event per the spec, versus an “event”, which is the thing that gathio describes. So:

• an Event is an Object that is attached to an Activity and conforms to the AP spec
• an event-the-thing-that-people-attend is an Actor; in this case I am representing it the actor as a Person because I don’t see a better choice (though maybe Service? I’m not sure that most implementations know how to represent that right now)
  • at this juncture I choose to interpret Person as an individual agent, rather than as an “individual person” per the AS Vocab spec

How is this going to work with implementations that deliberately don’t support direct messages, like mine? As of yesterday’s update, I return 400 Bad Request to any Create{Note} that doesn’t contain as:Public in either to or cc .

Great question. I’ll have to think about that. Right now your actors could still follow my actor and get normal public updates. But some correspondence between the human-actor and the event-actor should be private. I think they would simply have to go to the page and manually RSVP rather than doing it via federation.

Also since I was going to have events and the spec specifies the proper way of RSVPing to events ( Invite{Event} and then Accept/Reject/TentativeAccept{Invite} ), are there any plans to support that?

Yes, definitely.

I will add the Accept/Reject/TentativeAccept Invite as a TODO to my list, along with the boosting that nightpool mentioned above.