Post B6Np07zYu0dKI2e1Bo by julian@activitypub.space
(DIR) More posts by julian@activitypub.space
(DIR) Post #B6Jea9JnZWuQhVFBse by julian@activitypub.space
0 likes, 0 repeats
Hi @benpate@mastodon.social I've got a question about Activity Intents!I'm implementing it now (as you noticed) and have run into an interesting issue. The wording of 3b86 suggests that the intents are distinct between users. That is, the end user inputs their handle, the handle is queried via webfinger, and supported Intents are returned.However, the intents themselves don't really distinguish between users.[...]So I could have a localStorage session with multiple handles registered (e.g. julian@activitypub.space, nodebb@fosstodon.org), etc. — this works fine.But if I had two handles with the same domain, alice@example.social and bob@example.social, then my intents can't be targeted, can they... I just fire off the request (or rather, I have the end user's browser navigate) to the intent URL and whatever account is logged in will be the actor.Did I miss something, or was there a way to distinguish actors in Activity Intents?P.S. I find it highly amusing that you had to click through to activitypub.space to read my whole post, but because I don't support Activity Intents yet, you can't reply properly :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:
(DIR) Post #B6Jea9sXUMhMRFUw1w by benpate@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@julian Also, how far along are you? If you’d like, you’re welcome to use, fork, or be inspired by my JS library - https://github.com/EmissarySocial/camperjsI still need to do some better documentation for it, but let me know if you’re interested and I’ll get writing today.
(DIR) Post #B6JeaAIPw9OljVbbMm by julian@activitypub.space
0 likes, 0 repeats
@benpate@mastodon.social focused on it today. Mostly been working on the handle registration and integration into existing action flows for guests.On the receiving side, I have my users' webfinger supporting the Object intent.Here are some screenshots :eyes: and yes, I am pretending to be @pfefferle@mastodon.social because I don't have an account on mastodon.social LOL... I think at the end of the day the handle doesn't really matter if it's open-ended like that... like you said, you end up with whichever user is "signed in".
(DIR) Post #B6JeaAXJ2nJATgZUZc by pfefferle@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@julian @benpate I somehow feel a bit honored 😅
(DIR) Post #B6Np06TyVxlxbmrHJg by julian@activitypub.space
0 likes, 0 repeats
@benpate@mastodon.social well, the flow does work, although Mastodon's implementation is barebones.They support create, but only with a single argument {content}. No {inReplyTo} which severely hampers utility since any content posted will be a top-level toot. This isn't a criticism of 3b86, it is just what it is :smile:I might just have to test NodeBB-to-NodeBB instead.
(DIR) Post #B6Np06rN6yUImLnxmi by benpate@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@julian You’re exactly right, and I don’t see it as a criticism at all. It’s an on-ramp that lets people explore slowly, then add capabilities gradually. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem. I also want a “reply” activity as well, but I’m afraid nobody would support it yet.So I look for {inReplyTo} in the create response to see if replies are possible, then register a “synthetic” activity for the application to discover. This lets me turn buttons on and off based on your servers abilities.
(DIR) Post #B6Np073mMqPdOpbs7k by julian@activitypub.space
0 likes, 0 repeats
@benpate@mastodon.social "You’re exactly right" triggered :scream:I think it's wise to be hesitant about it. I think a Create intent with inReplyTo does already mean "Reply", so right now I don't see any reason to introduce a new intent.I had a similar thought about unvoting, which is something NodeBB does but isn't captured by ActivityStreams. We had to map it to Undo(Vote). So I was wondering if Undo would make sense in 3b86, but the Undo Intent already exists and would be more cromulent.
(DIR) Post #B6Np07FTfLlnz75DMG by benpate@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@julian I know.. agreement on the Fediverse is so rare, it’s almost scary 😉Yeah, Undo sounds like it makes sense in your case. I didn’t think of any in the beginning, so just overlooked it.One complicating factor is in showing the “state” of things in the remote site - we’d need a way to know that you voted for something first, so then we could undo it.But yeah, let’s add that into 3b86 as well. What kinds of parameters would you want to pass? Or, would you just want to write a PR?
(DIR) Post #B6Np07RsvDh8bat7hI by julian@activitypub.space
0 likes, 0 repeats
@benpate@mastodon.social said:But yeah, let’s add that into 3b86 as well. What kinds of parameters would you want to pass? Or, would you just want to write a PR?No, I think we'd want to KISS. If you upvote something with your fediverse account, and it doesn't "show" on the site that you upvoted, I think that's ok.The "you're exactly right" thing was an LLM joke :laughing:Okay. One-way 3b86 support is pushed to activitypub.space. Excuse the occasional broken language string, that'll get fixed up later. NodeBB will now let you register handles and can redirect to supported Like, Dislike, Create, and Follow handlers. @benpate@mastodon.social if you could give it a whirl.The other direction, there's almost no support right now. We just expose Object intent, but I will flesh out the same intents soon, so NodeBB users can consume Activity Intents too.
(DIR) Post #B6Np07daDj3JBsMSvo by julian@activitypub.space
0 likes, 0 repeats
@benpate@mastodon.social in 4.6 Create Intent, can you add a new parameter {audience}? I will use it to target a specific category/community for threadiverse posting.
(DIR) Post #B6Np07nrbVH9hlAfxI by benpate@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@julian I'm writing this up now. Do you also use the {context} property? Should I include this as well?
(DIR) Post #B6Np07zYu0dKI2e1Bo by julian@activitypub.space
0 likes, 0 repeats
@benpate@mastodon.social it wouldn't hurt, but no, I don't use it. However, I can use it! So it would be helpful :smile:When you reply to a topic, it's easiest to reply to a specific post, so that's why I'm using {inReplyTo}. When composing a new topic, {audience} is used to target the category.Replying to a topic isn't really supported on the fediverse (usually you just reply to the root-level post), but it is supported in NodeBB.
(DIR) Post #B6Np08By9sYeuWRvWq by benpate@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@julian That makes sense. I’ve been building out contexts for conversations, so it’s top of mind for me. But it makes sense that audience and inReplyTo might be enough. If the context is missing, I’d probably just fill in the context from the parent anyway.
(DIR) Post #B6Np08ONPkTzX0Fprs by julian@activitypub.space
0 likes, 0 repeats
@benpate@mastodon.social I think sending context makes a lot of sense, but technically context and audience used in those specific ways are not ActivityStreams "proper". Their association with topics and categories come from FEPs 7888 and 1b12, respectively.However because I implement both of them, I would love both added to your FEP 😝 — it might mean you'll need to put a note beside each linking to their FEPs.