Re: Request for review of ActivityPub

Hi!

Am 29.09.16 um 21:37 schrieb Christopher Allan Webber:

> ActivityPub has made a lot of progress... I even did a live demo of
> ActivityPub working with both client to server and server to server (ie,
> federation) support at TPAC.  We're looking to move to Candidate
> Recommendation status by October 11th, but in order to get there, we
> need to get proper wide review!  That means we need *YOUR* feedback! :)
> 
> Here's the latest specs:
>  - https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/ <- Working draft
>  - https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/ <- Editor's draft (the latest!)

I've got some problems understanding several parts of the text due to my
own incompatibility with formal texts.

For example: I think that with this "forwarding" in "8.2.2 Inbox
Delivery" you describe how to relay comments. But I really don't
understand it and wouldn't be able to implement it. I've got huge
problems in the understanding of descriptions without any sample data -
and when this is done in a foreign language, I'm mostly lost.

Concerning this signature stuff it is really, really sad that is only a
"may" and not a "must" rule. I think that is crucial for the whole
communication that you can be sure at any time that the content wasn't
changed in any way.

Concerning the whole transport I don't really like that there is only
one inbox. I like the concept of separating the network stream from the
private communication. I see a huge difference. The network stream
contains stuff that you *may* read, the private communication is
something that you really *should* see. For me this is the difference
between a mailing list and a mail directly from the sender to the receiver.

This is a blocker for a possible replacement for the Friendica protocol
or the Diaspora protocol.

Michael

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 22:12:27 UTC