new from me: FR#156 - Share Where?
-
@phillycodehound @fediversereport @Mastodon I know there's work being done on generic share and follow buttons with the Web Intents stuff by @dansup but in terms of APIs, more definitely needs to be done in that area. I might have an idea but would need to work out the finer details.
-
@trwnh Yes, that's accurate. I meant “pure” colloquially in contrast to “implementation-specific” (hence the scare quotes), but it is indeed WebFinger that's being extended, not ActivityPub itself.
@julian @fediversereport the implementation is still specified by that FEP, though? it assumes that the target template of each link is following the protocol defined by its link relation. so it's a kind of bespoke API endpoint (one for each activity type, with seemingly no way to prefill any information except the type and the object, and even then only for an extremely limited subset of types)
-
@julian @fediversereport the implementation is still specified by that FEP, though? it assumes that the target template of each link is following the protocol defined by its link relation. so it's a kind of bespoke API endpoint (one for each activity type, with seemingly no way to prefill any information except the type and the object, and even then only for an extremely limited subset of types)
@trwnh Your point is going over my head.
(a) Yes, the FEP specifies some behavior, with the goal being that different ActivityPub server software can implement it to achieve vendor-independent share (etc.) buttons.
(b) I've never implemented FEP-3b86 myself, so I'm probably the wrong person to discuss possible shortcomings. Going by the examples, its mapping of parameters to object properties appears to make it quite flexible. But I don't know – take it up with @benpate.
-
new from me: FR#156 - Share Where?
on @Mastodon 's new Share button, the Mastodon API and protocol ownership
FR#156 – Share Where?
On Mastodon's new Share button, and protocol ownership.
connectedplaces.online (connectedplaces.online)
@fediversereport @Mastodon The share button does not use the Mastodon API and has nothing to do with whether 3rd party apps or different platforms choose to implement the Mastodon API or not.
-
@fediversereport @Mastodon The share button does not use the Mastodon API and has nothing to do with whether 3rd party apps or different platforms choose to implement the Mastodon API or not.
@Gargron @fediversereport @Mastodon Can the share button also link to other platforms, or only to a Mastodon instance? -
@Gargron @fediversereport @Mastodon Can the share button also link to other platforms, or only to a Mastodon instance?
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport If it has a /share page, it works. The tool doesn't care.
-
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport If it has a /share page, it works. The tool doesn't care.
@Gargron
But why is it called Mastodon Share Button and not Fediverse Share Button? @Mastodon @fediversereport -
@trwnh Your point is going over my head.
(a) Yes, the FEP specifies some behavior, with the goal being that different ActivityPub server software can implement it to achieve vendor-independent share (etc.) buttons.
(b) I've never implemented FEP-3b86 myself, so I'm probably the wrong person to discuss possible shortcomings. Going by the examples, its mapping of parameters to object properties appears to make it quite flexible. But I don't know – take it up with @benpate.
@julian we may just be using words differently. my confusion was regarding "activitypub-based" and "[not] implementation-specific". to me, both of those statements are false.
i think i may have already mentioned to @benpate the lack of flexibility with the FEP and also the explosion of one-off "intents", as i prefer a single outbox, much as i prefer my definition of "activitypub server" to involve publishing arbitrary activities without enumeration.
-
@julian we may just be using words differently. my confusion was regarding "activitypub-based" and "[not] implementation-specific". to me, both of those statements are false.
i think i may have already mentioned to @benpate the lack of flexibility with the FEP and also the explosion of one-off "intents", as i prefer a single outbox, much as i prefer my definition of "activitypub server" to involve publishing arbitrary activities without enumeration.
-
@julian @fediversereport this was tried and then rolled back at some point, for reasons, though I forget what those were
-
@Gargron
But why is it called Mastodon Share Button and not Fediverse Share Button? @Mastodon @fediversereport@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport My impression is that a lot of people would be upset with us if we published something claiming to be a "fediverse" tool, as if we own the fediverse. Of course, there's also not nearly the same amount of brand recognition for the fediverse as a concept. There are at least 3 unofficial symbol proposals and most people outside the fediverse aren't familiar with any of them.
-
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport My impression is that a lot of people would be upset with us if we published something claiming to be a "fediverse" tool, as if we own the fediverse. Of course, there's also not nearly the same amount of brand recognition for the fediverse as a concept. There are at least 3 unofficial symbol proposals and most people outside the fediverse aren't familiar with any of them.
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport Probably the body best suited to publish something like a fediverse share tool is the @swf. Regardless, I think we're well within our rights to publish a tool our users asked for, catered to our own platform. Not everything has to be for everyone. PeerTube has a PeerTube app and Sepia Search, nobody is upset (nor should they be) that those don't work with Mastodon.
-
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport Probably the body best suited to publish something like a fediverse share tool is the @swf. Regardless, I think we're well within our rights to publish a tool our users asked for, catered to our own platform. Not everything has to be for everyone. PeerTube has a PeerTube app and Sepia Search, nobody is upset (nor should they be) that those don't work with Mastodon.
@gargron@mastodon.social that actually makes a lot of sense. I don't want to subscribe to the idea that you're on your way to the third E (
)... that you're simply trying to stay in your lane is the simplest most logical explanation. -
@julian @fediversereport this was tried and then rolled back at some point, for reasons, though I forget what those were
@halcy@icosahedron.website I'd love to learn more about prior attempts at utilising the protocol handler. Was it Mastodon who tried?
-
@ozzy @fediversereport @Mastodon @swf @hiker I think things work pretty well right now. You’ll never have 100% feature parity between platforms, sometimes it doesn’t even make sense. Some code forges now use ActivityPub between themselves, but I think most would agree it would be ridiculous to expect to be able to send a pull request to a code repository from Pixelfed or Mastodon. The important bits are the bits that are in common.
-
@julian @fediversereport https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/4511 Mastodon, and quite early. I think the removal (or at least depriorization) was because the browser UI for them was very poor and very flaky, though I don't recall details.
-
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport @swf No, it doesn’t.
-
@hiker @Mastodon @fediversereport @swf No, it doesn’t.
-
@julian @fediversereport https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/4511 Mastodon, and quite early. I think the removal (or at least depriorization) was because the browser UI for them was very poor and very flaky, though I don't recall details.
@halcy@icosahedron.website thanks for sharing! I'll have a look through and see what happened
-
@julian we may just be using words differently. my confusion was regarding "activitypub-based" and "[not] implementation-specific". to me, both of those statements are false.
i think i may have already mentioned to @benpate the lack of flexibility with the FEP and also the explosion of one-off "intents", as i prefer a single outbox, much as i prefer my definition of "activitypub server" to involve publishing arbitrary activities without enumeration.
I'd say "ActivityPub-based" is pretty close, though we could split hairs and say that #FEP3b86 does use the Activity Vocabulary.
The FEP just documents the real-world interfaces that we already have, so that websites can link to them remotely.
But I'm not sure you could make real "Share" "Like" or "Follow" buttons with just ActivityPub. It's fine for what it does, but there's a lot it DOESN'T do... and that's ok.
We're building an ecosystem, not a single protocol.
