After stewing for a long time in my head, a thought finally hit me. Why don't I build a single piece of software that does everything I want the way I want it.
Instead of finding a personal finance app, a invoicing app, a bookmarking app, a goodreads like app...etc., Why don't I just build a Django supersite with all these apps in one?
I don't have to define it as any kind of app, make it generic, worry about code quality or maintainability or anything really. Heck, I can even write a dead narrow PDF parser that parses my credit card statements and energy bills and have it all in the same app.
It just needs to support one user me. Has anyone else tried this route? Building a superapp for yourself?
Fellow #selfhosted#admins: how do you move important things (like family photos, as most other things are replaceable) under your own wing and sleep at night? One problem with disc or os and boom, all of it is gone. Like tears in rain.
@mms I don't host in any manner, and have lost irreplaceable photos. I have been thinking if self-hosting #Hubzilla and having a live clone of it would work out.
One of the action items that came out was to collate the state of current implementations. Unfortunately, outside of implementations that federate non-textual content (e.g. Pixelfed Stories, Mobilizon Events, etc.), the majority of implementors just use as:Note, which is not surprising given Mastodon's treatment of non-Note objects.
What is less clear is whether there is pent-up demand for use of a different data type for more richly forrmatted content. @mikedev and @jupiter_rowland provided some very illuminating history behind previous attempts to use as:Article, but importantly it seems that Mastodon (via @renchap) may be open to supporting this in some form as well.
While Mastodon has every reason to display as:Note as it sees fit, I'd like to hopefully address the undue influence towards using it especially in instances where as:Article were more appropriate. Mike (upthread) suggested a compromise:
that as:Note be reserved for content with attachments (images or otherwise), perhaps with a limited subset of html
and as:Article be used for content with a richer set of html (e.g. tables), and including the ability to display inline images
I explicitly did not specify that Note was for shorter content and Article for longer, because there exist plenty of examples of the reverse.
Does anybody see potential complications from such an arrangement?
I'll try to give it a boost from my #Mitra, #Hubzilla, and #Friendica accounts too (if I haven't already) so you can study/compare the various treatment cases :)
Sadly, I have not yet launched streams yet for study. I know, I'm a lame-O. I'll get to it shortly, prolly just spin up a local VM on Proxmox for that here, I really am anxious to give it a go :)
Whoo das wir das noch erleben durften... Jahrelang wurden von den Wikipedia Editoren alle Versuche gelöscht ... nun ist was online... ein paar Details werden wir nach und nach dort noch korrigieren bzw. ergänzen...