steve, 6 months ago

@bengo Most of the outbox requirements are specific to C2S and aren’t relevant for servers that don’t implement that profile. How will that information (about optionality) be captured? In cohort 1, there are requirements for “valid” inbox and outbox references. How is validity defined in that context? Does any syntactically valid URI satisfy the requirement?

bengo, 6 months ago

@steve
> outbox requirements... aren’t relevant for servers that don’t implement that profile

when you say 'that profile', which do you mean. Generally I am prioritizing the 'ActivityPub conformant Server' profile.

The 3 profiles are here https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#specification-profiles

bengo, 6 months ago

@steve

> In cohort 1, there are requirements for “valid” inbox and outbox references. How is validity defined in that context?

the requirements are interpreted by each test case. i.e. 'valid' is defined differently depending on the context and test case author. Similarly, the language of the test case is interpreted later by anyone programming an automation of the test case in a specific programming language.

the requirements and the test case and the agent running a test are all different

bengo, 6 months ago

@steve test case authors are encouraged to document these interpretations in the test case itself, e.g. in an 'assumptions' section.

Also, fwiw, the 'valid' is text I wrote off the cuff to summarize the requirement from spec, but the requirement does not actually use the word 'valid' afaict. There is a requirement and corresponding test that the property is present (validity aside, left for other reqs/tests).

https://socialweb.coop/activitypub/test-cases/actor-objects-must-have-required-properties/

bengo, 6 months ago

@steve

> Does any syntactically valid URI satisfy the requirement?

link to the specific requirement you mean and I will attempt to answer this question