Overall Ack and Thank You for this post.
Just some remarks
The specs do but certain “Actors” do not.
For the felt 1000th times I am linking the
SECTION 2 OF THE SPECS: “Conformance”
ActivityPub conformant Client
This designation applies to any implementation of the entirety of the client portion of the client to server protocol.
ActivityPub conformant Server
This designation applies to any implementation of the entirety of the server portion of the client to server protocol.
ActivityPub conformant Federated Server
This designation applies to any implementation of the entirety of the federation protocols.
It is called out whenever a portion of the specification only applies to implementation of the federation protocol. In addition, whenever requirements are specified, it is called out whether they apply to the client or server (for the client-to-server protocol) or whether referring to a sending or receiving server in the server-to-server protocol.
So can we, can the authors PLEASE DEFINE
entirety ???
As we are planning to pitch ActivityPub to the European Union as the interoperability standard to be chosen for the EU Services Act (see: #meeting:fediverse-policy) we have to admit that interop is very, very hard to achieve, atm.
If I understand “entirety” like I do, interop is easy if we speak (talk) more and not less like now again with the SocialCG which otherwise makes no sense at all.
We should say “webstandards” and W3C recommendations (hard to understand for politicians) and then name ActivityPub as the probably best matching “interoperability standard” see Sandro’s tweet to Evan
What I favour in first place is what MdB Anke Domscheit-Berg demanded in the German Parliament and several MEPs support:
An EU funded fediverse
And I would like to leave here:
and
and unfortunately