#social 2019-06-15
2019-06-15 UTC
# 
up201705417 if so, then maybe... I don't know if the standard specifies about this, in my original implementation of the collection in the plugin I did present
# up201705417 I was now checking mastodon's followers collection behaviour and:
# up201705417 MMN-o's URI is there and his GNU social instance doesn't have the ActivityPub plugin
# up201705417 so, if mastodon's implementation of followers collection is correct, it is supposed to present such users
# rialtate[m] Since it can be filtered by permissions (even empty) it doesn't really matter in all practicality
# rialtate[m] However
# rialtate[m] As someone who has written stats engines for the fediverse, it is easier if you don't mix protocols
# up201705417 > it is easier if you don't mix protocols
# up201705417 tenma: if I was you, I would go with that :)
# tenma up201705417: That was indeed the question btw :P , and yeah, it makes sense, I'll go with that
# tenma rialtate[m]: Thanks :)
# up201705417 > Since it can be filtered by permissions (even empty) it doesn't really matter in all practicality
# up201705417 rialtate: can you elaborate a bit on this?
# nightpool[m] tenma: it's honestly about a horse apiece but I would recommend not doing so
# nightpool[m] mastodon is in a weird position because we had to support the ostatus -> activitypub migration
# nightpool[m] and we still support ostatus
# nightpool[m] but for anyone consuming your followers collection it's just going to be confusing.
# rialtate[m] up201705417: if person A has followers B, C, and D, it can deliver a different followers collection to each. B might get an empty collection because they don't have permission to see followers, while C gets [B, C, D] and since C is hidden from everyone, D gets [B, D].
# rialtate[m] But mostly it's all or none
# rialtate[m] Meaning, it can't be relied on for anything
# rialtate[m] Meaning, technically, it probably doesn't matter
# up201705417 rialtate: thanks, that made it clearer :)
xmpp-social, vitalyster, ichoquo0Aigh9ie, dregin, ajordan and ahihi joined the channel; vitalyster left the channel
# fr33domlover o/
# fr33domlover Activity summary, who should set it? Client or server?
# fr33domlover The spec suggests client in 1 example, but otherwise no info about it at all
# nightpool[m] in a full c2s environment, the server should have minimal logic
# nightpool[m] anything about the actual content should be left up to the client
# nightpool[m] now, that said, i could see an argument for letting the server fill in an autogenerated summary if the client doesn't provide one, nothing in the spec forbids that
# fr33domlover Thanks for the insight nightpool[m]
# fr33domlover Going for client generated summary
# fr33domlover (With server generated fallback if client doesn't)
# 
jaywink[m] Our just launched Feneas forum for federated web discussion: https://feneas.org/federated-networks-forum/
vitalyster joined the channel; vitalyster left the channel