#social 2017-11-24
2017-11-24 UTC
timbl and rowan joined the channel
# 
xmpp-social [Takyoji] Why is sharedInbox "at risk", by the way? Lack of testing, or some possible implementation challenge with it?
# xmpp-social [ajordan] It was added quite late so probably lack of implementation experience but honestly at this point it should either not be marked as A Risk or dropped
# xmpp-social [ajordan] cwebber2?
# xmpp-social [ajordan] Takyoji: are you seeing that in the published spec or in the working draft?
# xmpp-social [Takyoji] Honestly, I think it makes far, far more sense to have
# xmpp-social [ajordan] Yes it does but if we don't have enough experience it's irresponsible to ship in the core spec instead of in an extension
# xmpp-social [Takyoji] I've never seen it's ommitted ever: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#atrisk
# xmpp-social [Takyoji] s/it's/it/
# xmpp-social [ajordan] ?
# xmpp-social [ajordan] It's in the WD too
# xmpp-social [ajordan] And in the staged PR https://dustycloud.org/tmp/activitypub_latest.html#atrisk
# xmpp-social [Takyoji] The reason the images aren't loading, is because the URL of the images are relative URLs, and they don't exist on that server.
# xmpp-social [ajordan] Oh yeah
# xmpp-social [ajordan] Makes sense
rowan_ joined the channel
rowan joined the channel
# xmpp-social [ajordan] cwebber2: yeah I know but it's a question of to what degree
# xmpp-social [ajordan] I think it's enough that we should just drop the At Risk marker?
# xmpp-social [ajordan] cwebber2: not arguing against it being in spec to be clear
# xmpp-social [ajordan] Yea lol
# xmpp-social [ajordan] Just saying we're about to be in PR, we should drop either the At Risk marker or the features themselves
# xmpp-social [ajordan] (I realize we'd need a vote to do this, I'm just saying)
# xmpp-social [ajordan] Are optional features not in the test suite?
# xmpp-social [Takyoji] and yes, to clarify, I'm speaking in support of sharedInbox being part of the official spec. Just didn't understand why it was 'at risk' at all
# xmpp-social [ajordan] cwebber2: which?
# xmpp-social [ajordan] Np!
# xmpp-social [ajordan] Goodnight! Happy Thanksgiving!!!
# xmpp-social [ajordan] :-)
xmpp-social and timbl joined the channel
# puckipedia <cwebber2> ajordan: Kroeg also uses it <- it does
# puckipedia not required, of course. internally sharedInbox just delivers to all targets internally :)
# puckipedia https://gist.github.com/puckipedia/fa6cccd270396d00055dde3e960c5a68 hmmm
timbl_ and timbl joined the channel
# erincandescent Did anyone ever come up with a way to make bto/bcc delivery less confusing? e.g. not dropping the specific actual recipient being delivered to from the bto/bcc lists?
timbl joined the channel
# puckipedia erincandescent: don't think so; the way Kroeg does it now is that if you receive an object in your inbox, no matter what the audience says, it will make it accessible to the owner of that inbox
# puckipedia I should probably check for "is it in the user's inbox" when validating if someone can access an object ornot
rowan, rowan_, jankusanagi_, timbl, distopico and JanKusanagi joined the channel
# 
ajordan Chocobozzz: are you https://framagit.org/chocobozzz/PeerTube/?
rowan and jankusanagi_ joined the channel