Egregoros · Phoenix Framework

Timeline

Post

Remote status

Context

silverpill

@silverpill@mitra.social remote

24w

@hongminhee

>There's no going back.

We absolutely must go back. Either we have a vibrant ecosystem where building stuff is a pleasant experience, or fediverse slowly dies while linked data cultists harass developers about nonresolvable URLs in @context.

JSON-LD adds nothing to ActivityPub, it only creates problems. Time to move on.

Lutin Discret

@lutindiscret@mastodon.libre-entreprise.com remote

24w

@silverpill @hongminhee can someone explain what was it supposed to bring?

It sounds like people are attached to xml with schemas whike everyone is using schemaless json (xmpp vs matrix...).

Phantasm (away)

@phnt@fluffytail.org remote

24w

@lutindiscret @silverpill @hongminhee It was supposed to bring document schema validation (you shouldn't be able to fool a JSON-LD consumer into accepting invalid documents) and instead it added complexity that few know how to deal with and subtle vulnerabilities with plain JSON consumers due to the ability of overriding types.

Also it was supposed to be entirely optional, but the current spec editors would like you to believe otherwise.

arcanicanis

@arcanicanis@were.social remote

24w

Also it was supposed to be entirely optional, but the current spec editors would like you to believe otherwise.

The part I love about the authors to the spec, is that as far as I'm aware, none of them have even made their own complete implementation in any way, and only one of them has made some contributions to Mastodon and Pleroma.

Meanwhile, one of the authors had their own federated microblogging application from the OStatus days (that OStatus was defined from), that they abandoned entirely, and had no interest to even attempt a remake or a fork with ActivityPub at all, despite both being their project.

I don't trust people that can't even follow through implementing their own suggestions/ideas.

Phantasm (away)

@phnt@fluffytail.org remote

24w

@arcanicanis @hongminhee @lutindiscret @silverpill cwebber was an occasional Mastodon contributor and that is it for contributions of authors that I know of.

The issue with trying to implement a server based on the spec as an author, is that you simply cannot. The specification raises more questions than it answers, it is as vague as it possibly could have been. It's more of a "build your own social media protocol" tutorial.

Replying to @phnt@fluffytail.org

arcanicanis

@arcanicanis@were.social remote

24w

I don't even understand how it reached Recommendation status, but then again I don't know all the W3C internal processes.

The hangup point that was holding it back from Recommendation status was that it lacked a test suite; and so one was written that basically [as far as I understood] was just a questionnaire of whether you implemented something or not (how does that even pass?).

I don't know if it even had anything that actually tested application behavior or validated the format or anything. But all of that's buried to the past, because it was written atop a fickle selection of tools, where the test suite codebase isn't even installable anymore. And nobody has lifted a finger for over ~6+ years now, to write a replacement, while the test suite link on the spec goes nowhere.

It's unfathomable how shallow of effort those that hold official status with the spec are.

Replies

Replying to @arcanicanis@were.social

@i@declin.eu remote

24w

@arcanicanis @phnt @hongminhee @lutindiscret @silverpill after two deadlines, which is one more than normally allowed, and entirely on sunk cost when mastodon snuck in as an implementation at the last moment, which is why step one of doing it again is starting mastodon and seeing if you're lucky enough to be accepted by their code