Drafting a [proposal][1] to add API support in #Fedify for the [ActivityPub Media Upload extension][2], the SocialCG-incubated #C2S companion that lets clients upload media via a dedicated `endpoints

[mariusor@metalhead.club]

@evan I did on reiver's comment on github: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/578#issuecomment-4366469692

It's a compromise between the current SocialCG proposal, and what I said above.

Do you think it warrants it's own ticket?

@hongminhee

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@mariusor @hongminhee yes, it should be a separate ticket.

I don't like your proposal for multiple reasons:

1) It doesn't include addressing, so the upload server doesn't know how to enforce authorization requests. Is the file for followers? Only addressed accounts? The public?

2) What happens if the client doesn't post the `Create` activity?

I think it's better to keep it all in one transaction together.

[mariusor@metalhead.club]

> 1) It doesn't include addressing,

As always it's the Clients that are responsible for addressing, therefore the second step should cover it, if the user/client chooses to perform it.

2) What happens if the client doesn't post the `Create` activity?

Whatever the server desires: cleanup after a while, keeping the media, etc.
Why do you think it's relevant for the specification itself?

ActivityPub, to my reading, is not about how to *store* content, but about how to *distribute* content.
So after it was uploaded, it's no longer the concern of the spec, unless operated further through other ActivityPub requests.

@evan @hongminhee