Re: CFC: remove "the actor's namespace" from section on Object IDs in ActivityPub spec

Ah. Yes, that's the way it's always been.

*However, for client to server communication, a server receiving an object
posted to the outbox with no specified id SHOULD allocate an object ID in
the actor's namespace and attach it to the posted object.*


The problem this erratum is addressing is that the spec says that the ID
should be allocated "in the actor's namespace", but it doesn't say what
that means (here or anywhere else).

We marked this as an erratum for now, with the correction being to remove
the phrase, and we'll see if the WG wants to take on the question of what
"the actor's namespace" is and why it would be useful.

I made an issue for the separate question you had:

https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/525

It's an interesting one!

Evan

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 8:29 PM Emelia S. <emelia@brandedcode.com> wrote:

> Nope, if the a server is receiving via client to server an object that is
> an activity (because activities all extend from Object), and that activity
> has no object ID, then this language is saying one will be allocated, which
> would mean via C2S you could not send transient activities. I think this
> language would need to specifically exclude activities?
>
> — Emelia
>
> On 28 Nov 2025, at 23:57, Evan Prodromou <evanp@socialwebfoundation.org>
> wrote:
>
> Your comments on these two CFCs makes me think you might have switched
> them around.
>
> Could you double-check that you're commenting on the correct thread?
>
> Evan
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 3:36 PM emelia <emelia@brandedcode.com> wrote:
>
>> What about intentionally transient objects? (Which includes activities),
>> per Section 3.1
>>
>> Emelia
>>
>> On 28. Nov 2025, at 18:55, Evan Prodromou <evanp@socialwebfoundation.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> As noted in this issue, the section on object IDs in the ActivityPub spec
>> mentions creating URLs in "the actor's namespace" without defining what
>> that would mean:
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/443
>>
>> To help with this problem, I've added the following proposed erratum:
>>
>> Section 3.1, "Object identifiers", says in part that the server should
>> create an ID "in the actor's namespace". "The actor's namespace" is not
>> otherwise defined, making it impossible for implementers to comply. One
>> solution is to remove this term from the sentence: *However, for client
>> to server communication, a server receiving an object posted to the outbox
>> with no specified id SHOULD allocate an object ID and attach it to the
>> posted object.*
>>
>> This is a call for consensus on adopting this erratum for ActivityPub. In
>> the absence of objections to this change by 12 Dec 2025 AOE EOD, I will add
>> this erratum to the Errata for ActivityPub, and make the corresponding
>> change to the editor's draft.
>>
>> To comment, please comment on issue #443 or reply in this thread.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Evan
>>
>>
>