thisismissem,
@thisismissem@hachyderm.io avatar

I fundamentally do not think it is wise for the ActivityPub community to be completely reimagining how an existing standard should be implemented, especially in a way that only satisfies the needs of a single client type.

https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/d8c2/fep-d8c2.md

I have a fuller objection to this FEP here: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-d8c2-oauth-2-0-profile-for-the-activitypub-api/3575/20?u=thisismissem

jenniferplusplus,
@jenniferplusplus@hachyderm.io avatar

@thisismissem I've never been able to make heads nor tails of that proposal. I cannot even tell what problem it's supposed to solve. Nevermind evaluating the actual proposed solution.

witchescauldron,

@thisismissem

Can you put this into social terms, so people can think about it, thanks.

thisismissem,
@thisismissem@hachyderm.io avatar

@witchescauldron this is something that requires technical detail, because it relates to technical specifications.

If you're not an implementer of software within the Fediverse, you probably don't need to worry too much about it right now.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • fediverse
  • khanakhh
  • magazineikmin
  • mdbf
  • GTA5RPClips
  • everett
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • tacticalgear
  • slotface
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • tester
  • JUstTest
  • ethstaker
  • cubers
  • osvaldo12
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • modclub
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines