marius@mariusor@metalhead.club: @julian I'm not sure if you're getting confused by a collection that is embedded into an object as a way to reduce request numbers, but still has a dereferenceable ID, and an anonymous collection/object that has no dereferenceable ID, so it can't be independently retrieved.<br><br>The first is a representation convenience that shouldn't be impacted by this FEP, and the second is well... unspecified... which leaves us in the same place as before this FEP was created by @silverpill

Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

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---
marius@mariusor@metalhead.club (2026-04-04 19:45:43)
@julian I'm not sure if you're getting confused by a collection that is embedded into an object as a way to reduce request numbers, but still has a dereferenceable ID, and an anonymous collection/object that has no dereferenceable ID, so it can't be independently retrieved.

The first is a representation convenience that shouldn't be impacted by this FEP, and the second is well... unspecified... which leaves us in the same place as before this FEP was created by @silverpill


---Replies---

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.