Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social
Human-computer interaction #HCI, computer science & programming, home server & self-hosting, games and other fun stuff.
Fediverse tool builder: @encyclia, @canary, FediRoster, Pinhole, ... see https://fietkau.software/tag/fediverse for more. I also help out with @fedidevs. If you do HCI-related research, check out https://directory.hci.social.
He/him. Posting mostly in English, but you might see the occasional German boost.
Website: https://fietkau.me
Employer: https://www.unibw.de/julian.fietkau
Matrix: https://matrix.fietkau.social/to/#/@julian:fietkau.social
ORCID: https://encyclia.pub/0000-0001-7264-8496
Joined: 2026-04-04 19:04:02
8 notes, 0 following, 0 followers
Reply to @silverpill@mitra.social
Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social (2026-04-10 01:49:04)
@silverpill Good to know, thank you! IMO there should be no restrictions on the two domains – I use two subdomains for convenience reasons, but platforms should support two completely different domains as well.
At least in my opinion. The vocal opponents of split-domain handles say that a user's handle should tell you where their profile is hosted, and there are nuances around things like domain blocks.
But if you ask me, I should be able to set a custom handle domain in my profile settings. 😄
Reply to @mitra@mitra.social
Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social (2026-04-09 23:27:51)
@mitra @silverpill Congrats on the split-domain support! I have added Mitra to https://correct.webfinger-canary.fietkau.software/#implementation-status
The only feature it's missing for an all-green table row is per-user custom WebFinger domains. I am on a long-term side mission to advocate for ActivityPub platforms to enable personal custom handle domains this way. ☺️
Reply to @hazelnoot@void.lgbt
Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social (2026-04-07 04:15:42)
@hazelnoot @fedify At the very least, Mastodon and Fedify (and by extension Hollo and Ghost) do. Outside of those I'm very unsure! I've seen @silverpill talk about it a bunch, so maybe Mitra supports it as well.
Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social (2026-04-07 03:04:16)
RE: https://mastodon.social/@bagder/116359048796181736
Could be potentially nice for fediverse server testing, as more implementations make the jump to final RFC 9421 HTTP signatures.
On the flip side, ever more complex curl invocations (here: Accept header plus signature fields plus key file, presumably) suggest use of more specialized CLI tools, such as provided by @fedify, or at least scripts/aliases.
Speaking of RFC 9421, which notable fediverse implementations can't handle it yet? Anyone keeping track?
#ActivityPub #FediDev #RFC9421
Reply to @julian@fietkau.social
Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social (2026-04-04 20:04:42)
@mariusor @silverpill Wait – is that restriction only applicable to collection creation? With the context of the surrounding section, I could see that making pragmatic sense.
If so, I might prefer having that be clarified by rewording to e.g. “Clients MUST NOT attempt to create new collections by embedding non-anonymous collections in objects”. Substitute “create or modify” if existing collections should be restricted as well.
Reply to @mariusor@metalhead.club
Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social (2026-04-04 19:54:39)
@mariusor @silverpill If your first example is allowed, then I don't know what “Clients MUST NOT embed non-anonymous collections in objects” means.
Reply to @mariusor@metalhead.club
Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social (2026-04-04 19:24:04)
@mariusor @silverpill I might be hazy on the goal of this FEP.
If it wants to establish new guidelines (that are particularly beneficial for specific implementation architectures) I'm all for writing that down, but then the intro sentence would need to be revised.
I was going to point at my own actor document noting that Mastodon inlines the `featured` collection, but I guess it doesn't do that anymore. Am I behind the times after all? 😅
Reply to @silverpill@socialhub.activitypub.rocks
Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social (2026-04-04 07:14:30)
@silverpill What is the rationale for “Clients MUST NOT embed non-anonymous collections in objects”?
I see the potential for cache poisoning etc. if we inline collections owned by someone else, but what's the harm in inlining my own collections?