@julian @erincandescent likewise. my initial thought was using Move to signal something like "these 6 posts were moved to another thread by a moderator"
@erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net @trwnh@mastodon.social Right, it gets a little confusing when implementors inherit context from the objects they're replying to (or maybe the root node?), but that's exactly what 7888 tries to codify/demystify.
But Akkoma's use of context seems to be in line with 7888 (in that it's pointing back to the resolvable context provided by NodeBB).
@erincandescent @trwnh so by my reckoning, Mastodon and Misskey don't use context, akkoma does... ugh, I need to add more sources to my observatory
@darius @evan @julian side note: Akkoma also emits a âconversationâ property containing the same URL, which is JSON-LD mapped tohttp://ostatus.org#conversation. This is because Mastodon will pass-through the conversation property to replies, but doesnât know about context. When Mastodon generates a Conversation tag (e.g. when its absent from the parent post), it stuffs a tag URI like tag:cosocial.ca,2024-10-04:objectId=26829720:objectType=Conversation into it. This is visible in evanâs earlier post
side side note: âconversationâ is misdeclared as a â@valueâ and not â@idâ property in Mastodonâs context. Oh well.
@julian @trwnh When Akkoma originates a thread the context it populates it with doesnât resolve.
However, fixing that is on my plate.
@julian @erincandescent if you want your post to be in the same context as the thing you're replying to, then it's inherited from the thing you're replying to.
7888 also describes what could happen if you decide to set your own context, or set *no* context. in fact, this is how you would self-fork a topic.
@julian @erincandescent if you want your post to be in the same context as the thing you're replying to, then it's inherited from the thing you're replying to.
7888 also describes what could happen if you decide to set your own context, or set *no* context. in fact, this is how you would self-fork a topic.
@julian @trwnh (Well, I guess whether it resolves or not is a matter of semantics. Arguably it resolves⊠just, it resolves to a 404)
@erincandescent @darius Lemmy uses `audience` instead, referring to the Lemmy community, which is a Group actor, and you're expected to look through the `outbox` and reconstruct replies on your own. the only hint you have is that the root of a reply tree is represented by an Announce Create Page.
good luck
@erincandescent @darius Lemmy uses `audience` instead, referring to the Lemmy community, which is a Group actor, and you're expected to look through the `outbox` and reconstruct replies on your own. the only hint you have is that the root of a reply tree is represented by an Announce Create Page.
good luck
@trwnh@mastodon.social @erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net
Arguably, when Lemmy uses audience they mean one level of abstraction higher than we do (the community). Like Mastodon, Lemmy doesn't actively support the concept of a context... I think.
@julian @trwnh @darius yeah I donât really object to their use of audience to refer to a community here, its basically the same as to: the community or similar
Their non-use of context is⊠disappointing, but then much of how Lemmy uses AP is disappointing and Weird.
@trwnh @julian (For people following along: I did a quote post experiemnt branching off form here that it seems NodeBB dropped on the floor)
@erincandescent @julian @darius this reminds me i was going to write a FEP for addressing to signal when you should use to/cc/audience based on some archaeology i did https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/overlapping-taxonomies-and-the-audience-property/4229/8
@erincandescent @julian @darius this reminds me i was going to write a FEP for addressing to signal when you should use to/cc/audience based on some archaeology i did https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/overlapping-taxonomies-and-the-audience-property/4229/8
@julian @erincandescent @darius right, so Lemmy basically forces you to start one level higher and then work your way down, on top of all the reply-tree reconstruction you're expected to do from one big outbox haystack
it reminds me of how we should actually try to flesh out the concept of Group actors and maybe alongside it the concept of a Forum (bc they're not the same to me, there are differences that need to be called out)
@julian @erincandescent @darius right, so Lemmy basically forces you to start one level higher and then work your way down, on top of all the reply-tree reconstruction you're expected to do from one big outbox haystack
it reminds me of how we should actually try to flesh out the concept of Group actors and maybe alongside it the concept of a Forum (bc they're not the same to me, there are differences that need to be called out)
@erincandescent @julian @darius it's covered in the doc, which is free to read!