Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @trwnh@socialhub.activitypub.rocks
silverpill@silverpill@socialhub.activitypub.rocks (2026-05-17 18:39:56)
This is probably how things would work if I were to develop a high-level library similar to Fedify.
But I built APx, a low-level library. It is only aware of several special properties, such as id (which is used to authenticate fetched objects) and proof (which is used to verify FEP-8b32 signatures). The user decides what to do with other properties.
Mitra, on the other hand, attempts to follow inReplyTo and FEP-e232 references when it processes an object, but only because it cares about "posts". There are no general rules for id-ish properties and hrefs.
---Reply---
a@trwnh@socialhub.activitypub.rocks (2026-05-18 09:46:29)
But do you distinguish between "id" as a property vs an id as a property's value? Do you authenticate one but not the other? And if there isn't an AS2 representation do you conclude it's not authentic somehow?
Reply
---Replies---
silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social (2026-05-19 03:31:59)
But do you distinguish between "id" as a property vs an id as a property's value? Do you authenticate one but not the other?
I don't understand the question. An object is being authenticated, not its id. I mean this procedure described in FEP-fe34:
https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/fe34/fep-fe34.md#fetching-from-an-origin
And if there isn't an AS2 representation do you conclude it's not authentic somehow?
Non-AS(AP) representation would not be a part of protocol. It is neither authentic nor unauthentic, it is an external resource.