infinite love ⴳ @trwnh@mastodon.social
Quiet public

@hugh @skyfallerNelson part of the problem with how “underdefined” it is, is that we’re not talking about the big picture being there but mostly in need of filling in the gaps. we’re talking about “there is no agreed-upon authorization framework” levels of “underdefined”.

the other part is that it presupposes a wildly different topology than what fedi adheres to. the most natural interpretation of “client” is not something like Tusky. the AP client would be Mastodon itself as a client of an AP server

infinite love ⴳ @trwnh@mastodon.social
Quiet public

@hugh @skyfallerNelson here, the AP server handles storage and delivery. i could then use mastodon/pixelfed/etc as clients to GET/POST against my outbox/inbox as needed, basically treating the AP server as a database of sorts, as well as a mail server of sorts.

most implementations of fedi are not like this and do not want to do this. they want to be monoliths. monoliths are “easy”. the will to abstract away social activity storage and delivery is largely not there.

0
0
0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://mastodon.social/users/trwnh/statuses/114440338693386010 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)