Home

@smallcircles @julian I think we might have different ideas about what the ActivityPub API task force is for.

To me, it's about making it possible for clients to use different servers, and different implementations of the API. That's going to include the social API defined in the ActivityPub standard, but it will also encompass things like rate limits, authentication, caching, CORS, and so on.

How that all gets documented will probably be in one or more community group reports.

@evan @julian

The extent to which the default profile becomes a 'straightjacket' impact scope, applicability, and usability. I guess its alright as long as there's sufficient flexibility and extensibility taken into account. Guess the "sufficient" does the heavy lifting here.

@smallcircles @julian I think that's always a tension in standards! How do you make it explicit enough that developers can build interoperable software, but extensible enough that they can try new things?

I think one pattern that works well is some base-level standards assumed, and easy ways for extensions to be discoverable and negotiable. If your preferred extension isn't available from the software on the other side of the line, you fall back to the base-level standard.