Re: Reconciling theory and in practice -- do the specs need updating?

Hi Adbullah, all,

On 2 Mar 2023, at 23:48, Abdullah Tarawneh wrote:

> There's nothing that needs to be changed about the specs,

with due respect, I have to object. AP et al. see itself as 'living 
standards' which implies dynamics. But however it isn't capable purging 
almost from day 1 deserted references and domains (e.g. test suite).

This is a huge obstacle for implementors like me. It deems each has to 
maintain servers of every other product to federate with. What a 
technology hell and waste of time.

> Currently this is something you will have to obtain from each 
> project's documentation

This renders every standard mostly useless.

> More to the point: there is no one "fediverse", and any 
> interoperability
> requires not only shared context, but also shared abstractions, design
> decisions, policies, and so on.

Also I have to object. Interoperability is the core promise of the idea 
coined with the term 'fediverse'. IMO the 'verse' meaning being one 
containing all, the 'divers' meaning plurality. And 'fedi' means 
listening to each other. The word 'fediverse' as a whole is singular for 
a reason I guess.

> Federation is therefore a "best-effort", "open-world" system, where
> everyone is free to do whatever they need to do for their own 
> purposes, and
> any "interoperability" must necessarily be semantic.

That's a modest claim. There's no need for a standard to achieve such. 
This leaves the burden on the implementors and fosters 'the winner takes 
it all' monopoly emergence. What I currently see. Unfavourable.

The elephant in the room is busy with it's own affairs and takes part in 
no FEPs, mailing list, socialhub or anything. The w3c mostly is hosting 
this list. Isn't it?

kind regards,
Marcus

Received on Friday, 3 March 2023 07:55:49 UTC