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

Note Detail

Reply to @silverpill@mitra.social
marius@mariusor@metalhead.club (2026-06-14 21:04:00)
@silverpill I think you're wrong. It feels perfectly natural that the same activity can be used with different objects. That's the whole purpose of the Activity vocabulary itself being split between activities and objects, isn't it?

And yes, that sometimes means that different side-effects need to be implemented for processing the same type of activity.
---Reply---
silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social (2026-06-14 22:07:12)
@mariusor Wrong about what, using different names for different things?

Only a few activities from Activity vocabulary work well with any type of object. For example Create and Update.

---Replies---

marius@mariusor@metalhead.club (2026-06-14 22:18:50)
@silverpill wrong about thinking that the activity type is the only meaningful information about the side-effect of its reception. 

The official specification already has a case where Create/Delete have slightly different logic based on their objects:

https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#h-motivations-crud

vs. 

https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#h-motivations-relationships

PS. I'm not defending the Mastodon FEP, but clarifying that the underlying assumption of using existing vocabulary for what is basically the same operation, be it on different object types, makes sense.