It’s really surprising to me that the #fediverse hasn’t agreed on a standardized way to open cross-instance #activitypub objects and instead relies on links that open in the browser.
-
@sl007 @julian @jaffathecake @benpate but you don’t need approval or the blessing from the browsers to implement a uri scheme right? iTunes used it with itms: , zoom does it.
It works of people have the app. You would only need their support if you want the browser to do something with the uri out of the box when there is no app other than showing an error. Right?
@ricferrer@mastodon.social yes and no. I think standalone apps can listen for their own protocol handlers (like julian:// what a great protocol)
But PWAs must use the
web+prefix. The OS (or maybe just the browser) won't allow registration otherwise@trwnh@mastodon.social @benpate@mastodon.social @sl007@digitalcourage.social
-
@trwnh @benpate
The issue with PWA targets afaik is that they are like universal/app links -> bound to a domainApps from different vendors can pick it up (it’s only a problem if you have more than one on iOS, Android lets you choose)
For 3b to work you would need to tell the page with the content which one is your home server every time for every content
Do you use a browser for the fediverse mostly or an app? I am 100% app
“For 3b to work you would need to tell the page with the content which one is your home server every time”
Not quite. FedCM solves this. And in the interim, we can put this in localStorage so you only need to enter your handle once per domain. And even that can be reduced if all the JS widgets are served by a shared location.
-
@trwnh @benpate
The issue with PWA targets afaik is that they are like universal/app links -> bound to a domainApps from different vendors can pick it up (it’s only a problem if you have more than one on iOS, Android lets you choose)
For 3b to work you would need to tell the page with the content which one is your home server every time for every content
Do you use a browser for the fediverse mostly or an app? I am 100% app
I’m 70/30 app/browser. I used the browser, for instance, when traveling internationally so I don’t have an app signed in to my identity.
But I’m not the target audience. I’m already sold. The main reason to put open web first is to give an on-ramp to newbies who would join us if we made it easy enough
-
@ricferrer@mastodon.social yes and no. I think standalone apps can listen for their own protocol handlers (like julian:// what a great protocol)
But PWAs must use the
web+prefix. The OS (or maybe just the browser) won't allow registration otherwise@trwnh@mastodon.social @benpate@mastodon.social @sl007@digitalcourage.social
-
@ricferrer@mastodon.social yes and no. I think standalone apps can listen for their own protocol handlers (like julian:// what a great protocol)
But PWAs must use the
web+prefix. The OS (or maybe just the browser) won't allow registration otherwise@trwnh@mastodon.social @benpate@mastodon.social @sl007@digitalcourage.social
That’s really helpful. Thanks, Julian://
One follow up question? Is it possible for regular apps to use the web+ prefix, too? Otherwise we’d have to pick one over the other, which might be problematic.
-
@ricferrer@mastodon.social yes and no. I think standalone apps can listen for their own protocol handlers (like julian:// what a great protocol)
But PWAs must use the
web+prefix. The OS (or maybe just the browser) won't allow registration otherwise@trwnh@mastodon.social @benpate@mastodon.social @sl007@digitalcourage.social
well, the difference is what I demoed at IWC:
Apple itself (itms) or zoom https://www.visualcapitalist.com/zoom-boom-biggest-airlines/ can do anything.
You will not be asked for consent.
Same with mailto …But as shown the consent mechanism is not standardized and when I see the nearly white icon in the white browser bar I wanted to hit the person who made it cause at least 30% will not even realize it …
-
That’s really helpful. Thanks, Julian://
One follow up question? Is it possible for regular apps to use the web+ prefix, too? Otherwise we’d have to pick one over the other, which might be problematic.
This is possible as just answered to Julian but someone needs to fix the consent issues in the browsers (shown in posted demo video) which is nothing we can do …
-
This is possible as just answered to Julian but someone needs to fix the consent issues in the browsers (shown in posted demo video) which is nothing we can do …
@benpate @julian @ricferrer @trwnh
PS History continued, two years later, in 2019 I sponsored the first offiial ActivityPub Conf https://conf.tube/c/apconf_channel/videos and in the Prague dox museum we had a short session where we said to talk to the browser people again in some years. The 2020 Conf was fully packed and then I was personally overloaded with the EU DMA/DSA consulting (disclaimer; invited expert but all voluntary) …
But maybe that time would benow - at least in the interest of accessibility …[Jake Archibald and Jenn Simmons and more browser makers are meanwhile in fedi themselves …]
-
@benpate @trwnh @evan @julian @rimu I know I implemented it at some point by analyzing what Facebook and co were doing. I think it was kind of a hack, but it worked. It didn’t let you know what was available. It just assumed it worked if you left the page and if you were still there it opened http. Like I said sometimes you had the page open when you came back to the browser (so it effectively opened both) but it wasn’t that annoying
@ricferrer @benpate @trwnh @julian @rimu so, maybe we should have a group working on this problem.
-
@ricferrer @benpate @trwnh @julian @rimu so, maybe we should have a group working on this problem.
-
@ricferrer@mastodon.social I feel keeping this on fedi is easier, but that's also because I don't have a matrix account
-
@ricferrer@mastodon.social I feel keeping this on fedi is easier, but that's also because I don't have a matrix account
@julian @ricferrer I meant, taking it to a Task Force. It's a really important question.
-
@julian @ricferrer I meant, taking it to a Task Force. It's a really important question.
@evan@cosocial.ca yep! I was responding to using a matrix chat room.
I'm all for a task force on this.
-
-
I think the biggest difference with pdfs, mp4 in your example and an activity is that I most likely want to interact with an activitypub object: either follow, repost/announce, etc for this to work I need to be logged in. So is the solution to include an activitypub client in the browser? Use an external viewer that intercepts through browser extensions?
Now even the experience inside mastodon sometimes opens a webview
️@julian @evan @rimu @ricferrer @trwnh I think handlers like this are an older desktop paradigm, on mobile we already have share sheets, and we’re sharing a url, to an app, what happens when the app receives the url is a client concern. Get the ActivityPub representation, and carry on as you would in the fedi (actor follow, or object like share, reply)!
Desktop OS’ have already adopted this UX -
@benpate what are your thoughts on matrix? I am considering using it in a product I am working on and would love to know why you don’t like it 🧐
I’ve been testing Element X and haven’t found many issues.
-
This is AMAZING, Dan, and it would be a huge win. #ThankYouThankYouThankYou!!!
@benpate @trwnh @ricferrer @evan @julian @rimu Done!
https://loops.video/.well-known/webfinger?resource=acct:dansup@loops.video · BrowserPub · A browser for exploring ActivityPub and the fediverse
Explore the open social web through the lens of ActivityPub and the fediverse.
(browser.pub)
-
Here’s a question: do browsers let JavaScript introspect what custom protocol handlers are available/installed?
I’m planning a Franken-widget that works with whatever tools are available.
Activity Intents? Sure
Custom protocol? Okay, we’ll use that too.
None of the above? Sniff the server and polyfill.
We could certainly try an “AND” approach, if JavaScript will let us.
@benpate
Off course not, this would be even illegal in the EU.[edit] I am super thankful for the FEP!
It is just that I am (at the same time) super frustrated about the browser makers, acting as gatekeepers in the context of Open Protocols.
As the elected Policy Lead, I advised the EU about „federating systems“ in the DMA/DSA. Nothing of this is covered by the law currently.The idea is super old and dead simple.
https://developer.mozilla.org/de/docs/Web/API/Navigator/registerProtocolHandler
The "limited available" and the calculated "bugs" in the support makes me sad.As user: If it is my private computer, I want to be able to store the "me" in the browser, that is primarily my fedi handle ot url … … …
Then it is possible on any webpage to share any ActivityPub item from my account by just a click without revealing my identity directly. This should really be a task of the browser. Mozilla Persona was a nice idea as well until they sent the team to create games which nobody played. -
@julian @evan @rimu @ricferrer @trwnh I think handlers like this are an older desktop paradigm, on mobile we already have share sheets, and we’re sharing a url, to an app, what happens when the app receives the url is a client concern. Get the ActivityPub representation, and carry on as you would in the fedi (actor follow, or object like share, reply)!
Desktop OS’ have already adopted this UX@django @julian @evan @rimu @ricferrer now that i'm more awake, one other big concern is that fedcm means no privacy. so a browser or os solution like an extension or a share target is privacy-preserving. i don't think it's acceptable to make people say who they are just so like and share buttons can work. your identity should not be known to the site necessarily unless there's a very good reason (like reading private posts)
-
@strypey did we not start with exactly that? we're way past the point of acknowledging the pain point...
or should I make one?
