Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • All Topics
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Caint logo. It's just text.
  1. Home
  2. Technical Discussion
  3. FEP 11dd: Context Ownership and Inheritance
Welcome to Caint!

Issues? Post in Comments & Feedback
You can now view, reply, and favourite posts from the Fediverse. You can click here or click on the on the navigation bar on the left.

FEP 11dd: Context Ownership and Inheritance

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Technical Discussion
fepactivitypub
6 Posts 4 Posters 1 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • julianJ This user is from outside of this forum
    julianJ This user is from outside of this forum
    julian
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    This is a discussion topic for the aforementioned FEP.

    FEP 7888 (trwnh@mastodon.social) defines the use of context to group reply-associated objects together.
    FEP f228 (silverpill@mitra.social) defines how a context resolves to a collection of posts or activities, and how this can be used to backfill a conversational context.

    This proposal aims to extend these guidelines further by codifying:

    1. That a context declares an owner via context.attributedTo.
    2. The situations where a context may be inherited by new objects.

    This FEP is a descendant of 7888 and sits alongside f228.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
    3
    • R ActivityRelay shared this topic
    • silverpillS This user is from outside of this forum
      silverpillS This user is from outside of this forum
      silverpill
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      The object SHOULD inherit a context other than its own.

      I don't quite understand what "its own context" means here. Do root (top-level) objects have their own contexts?

      When publishing an object with a context property outside the local domain, the context owner SHOULD be addressed (to, cc, bto, bcc).

      I think the owner should be addressed even if the context is local, because to and cc are important for access control.

      julianJ julianJ 2 Replies Last reply
      1
      0
      • silverpillS silverpill

        The object SHOULD inherit a context other than its own.

        I don't quite understand what "its own context" means here. Do root (top-level) objects have their own contexts?

        When publishing an object with a context property outside the local domain, the context owner SHOULD be addressed (to, cc, bto, bcc).

        I think the owner should be addressed even if the context is local, because to and cc are important for access control.

        julianJ This user is from outside of this forum
        julianJ This user is from outside of this forum
        julian
        wrote last edited by
        #3

        silverpill@mitra.social You’re right! I should be clearer in my wording on both those points 💯

        1 Reply Last reply
        1
        0
        • silverpillS silverpill

          The object SHOULD inherit a context other than its own.

          I don't quite understand what "its own context" means here. Do root (top-level) objects have their own contexts?

          When publishing an object with a context property outside the local domain, the context owner SHOULD be addressed (to, cc, bto, bcc).

          I think the owner should be addressed even if the context is local, because to and cc are important for access control.

          julianJ This user is from outside of this forum
          julianJ This user is from outside of this forum
          julian
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          > I don’t quite understand what “its own context” means here.

          This line was lifted from an earlier draft where additional examples of defining ones own context, removing a context, or inheriting a context, is spelled out explicitly.

          I realized after drafting that that was already more or less described in 7888 and so brevity won out.

          I will need to reword that.

          1 Reply Last reply
          1
          0
          • infinite love ⴳT This user is from outside of this forum
            infinite love ⴳT This user is from outside of this forum
            infinite love ⴳ
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            @julian i am still kind of confused what this fep adds over 7888 which already describes ownership and inheritance. i guess upgrading some SHOULDs to MUSTs? which i don't think are actually MUSTs in practice... any missing info can be skipped over.

            julianJ 1 Reply Last reply
            1
            0
            • infinite love ⴳT infinite love ⴳ

              @julian i am still kind of confused what this fep adds over 7888 which already describes ownership and inheritance. i guess upgrading some SHOULDs to MUSTs? which i don't think are actually MUSTs in practice... any missing info can be skipped over.

              julianJ This user is from outside of this forum
              julianJ This user is from outside of this forum
              julian
              wrote last edited by
              #6

              Good question — in my opinion, 7888 serves as a gentle introduction into the entire concept of conversational contexts. It’s meant to be descriptive in order to capture the variety of existing implementations of context that are found in the wild (e.g. Pleroma context which doesn’t resolve, contexts that are not URLs, etc.)

              Each subsequent FEP “down the tree” (or up, depending on how you look at it) narrows the scope and upgrades verbiage in order to enable additional functionality.

              Specifically pertaining to 11dd:

              • Ownership is explicitly defined and is now a requirement, 7888 mentioned attributedTo and context ownership as examples only.
                • This upgrade was done to set the stage for subsequent FEPs for forking, merging, moving, etc.
              • Activities should be sent to the context owner. This is identical to 7888, but re-stated as a reminder.
              • A specific recommendation for inheritance is included (adopt the immediate parent’s context, more if able), while 7888 allows for one to drop context altogether, inherit, or create your own.

              This is not to say that 7888 is deficient in any manner. On the contrary, it’s working entirely as intended!

              In practice, Lemmy has adopted 7888, but at this time will not adopt 11dd. nutomic@lemmy.ml creates a context local to the instance, for each post because each instance is expected to be the canonical representation of the context, even if they are cached representations of remote federated content.

              It means it would preclude Lemmy from adopting further upgrades like forking/merging/moving/locking, but it doesn’t mean they are wrong in doing so.

              trwnh@mastodon.social

              1 Reply Last reply
              1
              0
              Reply
              • Reply as topic
              Log in to reply
              • Oldest to Newest
              • Newest to Oldest
              • Most Votes


              • Login

              • Don't have an account? Register

              • Login or register to search.
              • First post
                Last post
              0
              • Categories
              • Recent
              • Tags
              • All Topics
              • Popular
              • World
              • Users
              • Groups