@evan@markstos@J12t Just to clarify my position. I 100% agree forking AP would be the wrong thing. I just don't think that counting competing protocols out is prudent. Hard to see, the future is, and I don't believe in a winner take all scenario. AP is so broad, it is a strength and a weakness.
@evan@markstos@J12t I agree. It was in response to you saying Nostr and AT were competition that hurts AP. And you are right, that can be the case. But I'm not sure GraphQL (always) hurts REST, though they compete at some level. We may find them living together happily with different use cases. Or not. I can't say. Who really can?
One question is: What is the meaning of compatibility in a protocol that currently is so tremendously flexible with ill-defined extension mechanism, that each app is its own flavor?
I previously spoke about Standards Process not being afraid of sketching its own path forwards, and that that not be wholly in line with The Mastodon Way™. And I think such approach is good. A quality spec provides incentives for Mastodon to be compliant, and it is not the other way around.
Anything less than those 3 stages will only serve to hamper #Fediverse evolution.
Priority in the Standards Process, besides filling in 'core protocol' gaps & holes is providing rock-solid Integration Guidance with best-practices for creating domain-specific #ActivityPub extensions.
Just to make it very clear: I do NOT advocate forking the spec. On the contrary, I would like to streamline the 3-step process from people doing stuff in the ecosystem based on best-practices that give most interop guarantees, to AP extensions / protocol mechanisms that need further SocialHub/FEP standardization, up-to full consideration within the W3C CG/WG context. Final and most formal stage.
What I do advocate however is that it shouldn't be the task of SocialHub/SocialCG to reverse-engineer the full tech debt out of the existing ecosystem. That would give a horrible standard anyway.
Bad practices exist now in codebases, and the Standards Process needs to hand guidelines and incentive to correct those, by providing quality specs and docs.
There is a Mastodontoverse / Microbloggoverse that may or may not contain some of those practices, where standards can help them.
> If you make a separate copy of the AS2 and AP documents, make changes, and publish it elsewhere, I call that a fork.
is not what I am calling for. The specs are sole domain of the W3C. No forks, no copies.
FEP's are less formal. They are not AS/AP, but the 3 --> 2 --> 1 Standards Process they can be handed over to W3C for further standardization in whatever form CG/WG thinks is best.
Please stop lying and your wars.
Many people complaint about you after you banned official people from socialhub, tried to split the community, tried to split the specs.
You were the reason that we are on a mailing list and changed forums.
You answered none of my posts or hamish nor did you answer W3C. You only fought against Social CG and maybe 100 people reported.
After I was elected, you began your war against me. Would you now please stop?
People cry cause of you and I want that to end !!! (!)
Add comment