Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @silverpill@mitra.social
Mike Macgirvin@mike@macgirvin.com (2026-06-05 07:29:08)
I might recommend adding a pointer to a formal definition of "post" (as used here) for the benefit of newcomers.
---Reply---
silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social (2026-06-06 03:25:18)
@mike The formal definition of a 'thread' should suffice :]
Reply
---Replies---
Mike Macgirvin@mike@macgirvin.com (2026-06-06 07:35:07)
OK, I need to push back this time. If your context collection contains enough information to rebuild a conversation from scratch, I don't care about the presentation. My context collection is legal ActivityStreams, as is a "posts" collection. It differs from a "posts" collection only in that it provides enough information to rebuild a restricted access conversation from scratch. A "posts" collection doesn't work well in that environment. In my experience it doesn't work at all, but I'll take any improvement in backfilling it might provide. If restricted access conversations matter to you, you might prefer to use signed activities in your presentation. If they don't, use any presentation that works for you.
I believe that a "posts" collection has a limitation that backfilling contains no "likes" and not sure how you might rebuild the conversation accurately without them. This is why I'm looking for a clarification. I just want clarification that if I load your context that I still need to go out and hunt down reaction activities, or if you're going to provide them somehow (how?).
Otherwise, the precise presentation of the context element shouldn't be a deal-breaker issue for anybody at all.