Documenting federation behavior in a semi-standard way?

[darius]

@grishka

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

@grishka

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.

@grishka

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.