Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @silverpill@mitra.social
Samuel Brinkmann@sabrinkmann@hachyderm.io (2026-06-13 03:08:13)
@silverpill @Profpatsch @grindhold
I think content negotiations would be interesting as soon as we start using different content types more frequently. For example, with software that has menus, I guess it would be interesting to have a note version, an event version and just a proposal version for each item.
Conversely, if you needed to buy a ticket for an event, it would also be interesting to receive a proposal for that.
---Reply---
silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social (2026-06-13 04:30:14)
@sabrinkmann Why create different versions when you can use one?
There are ways in which the Fediverse can accomodate the greater number of different services:
- Content negotiation: every server advertises supported types, and the sender needs to adjust activities depending on what the recipient understands.
- Duck typing: recipients don't filter received objects by type, and instead look at their properties.
I don't think the first approach can work at scale. It's like serving different websites to different web browsers.
(Negotiation can be useful in some cases, though - I even wrote a FEP about this: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/844e/fep-844e.md)
@Profpatsch @grindhold
Reply
---Replies---
grindhold@grindhold@23.social (2026-06-13 20:20:30)
@silverpill @sabrinkmann @Profpatsch
the biggest problem with the duck typing approach imo is, that there might occur situations in which different definitions exist for the same field.
e.g. we had this situation where content was defined as a Proposal as string, whereas in Note it was common to have a mapping from lang-code to a string in the according language as content.
In this case we could figure it out but there might be more complicated cases and not every type might end up mixable