Twitter | Search | |
Evan Prodromou
I'm happy for Mastodon's success but disappointed they didn't use the modern protocol ActivityPub we developed at W3C. All I have to say.
Reply Retweet Like More
Aleksa Sarai [see §317C.6] 9 Apr 17
Replying to @evanpro @cra
GNU Social compatibility is a constraint, pump.io didn't provide it. Plus OStatus is a collection of standards as well.
Reply Retweet Like
Aleksa Sarai [see §317C.6] 9 Apr 17
Replying to @evanpro @cra
To be clear, I also felt this way too when I first heard of pump.io. But OStatus actually has good tooling. Why wouldn't you prefer it?
Reply Retweet Like
Aleksa Sarai [see §317C.6] 9 Apr 17
Replying to @evanpro @cra
[I say that as someone who works on standardisation. Having tooling and compatibility with existing impls are constraints of standards IMO.]
Reply Retweet Like
Ed Summers 10 Apr 17
I think some of the groans about XML in 's are one reason why aiming for ActivityPub is important.
Reply Retweet Like
Conrad 10 Apr 17
Replying to @edsu @lordcyphar and 2 others
Those complaints were mostly tongue in cheek. I imagine the whole interop story would be very different with JSON. Namespaces help a lot.
Reply Retweet Like
Laurent Therond 10 Apr 17
Who did implement ActivityPub?
Reply Retweet Like
Aleksa Sarai [see §317C.6] 10 Apr 17
Replying to @deoxxa @edsu and 2 others
While JSON has it's upsides, the ability for proper typing and a real concept of remote refs is actually a benefit IMO.
Reply Retweet Like
Ed Summers 10 Apr 17
I don't even know what remote refs are, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't outweigh the ubiquity of JSON as a standard for data on the web.
Reply Retweet Like
Aleksa Sarai [see §317C.6] 10 Apr 17
Replying to @edsu @deoxxa and 2 others
<link rel= /> has semantic meaning and is obvious to anyone who reads it. With JSON you have to BYO everything.
Reply Retweet Like
Aleksa Sarai [see §317C.6] 10 Apr 17
Replying to @edsu @deoxxa and 2 others
I'm not saying XML is good, I'm saying "it's not JSON, therefore we need a new standard" is not enough of a justification.
Reply Retweet Like
Aleksa Sarai [see §317C.6] 10 Apr 17
Replying to @edsu @deoxxa and 2 others
Especially when JSON doesn't even clearly bring benefits since it doesn't have any type information for elements.
Reply Retweet Like
yala @yala@occitanie.social @ya:matrix.allmende.io 10 Apr 17
This is to be found out, see this thread. Test suite only out now, so no implementations known, yet?
Reply Retweet Like
Ed Summers 10 Apr 17
JSON has enough types for it to be the most widely used data interchange format on the web. I'm not saying XML isn't good & useful.
Reply Retweet Like
Aleksa Sarai [see §317C.6] 10 Apr 17
Replying to @edsu @deoxxa and 2 others
JSON has 4 types, because JavaScript has basically 4 types that you care about. Why model everything after JavaScript?
Reply Retweet Like
Aleksa Sarai [see §317C.6] 10 Apr 17
Replying to @edsu @deoxxa and 2 others
JSON's biggest problem is introspection. There isn't even a standard way of referencing a schema!
Reply Retweet Like
Aleksa Sarai [see §317C.6] 10 Apr 17
Replying to @edsu @deoxxa and 2 others
Sure, people don't care if they're making a webapp because it's good enough for that. But don't mistake usage as technical excellence.
Reply Retweet Like
Ed Summers 10 Apr 17
Yes the atom:link element is great. You can do the same thing in JSON. It really isn't hard.
Reply Retweet Like
Ed Summers 10 Apr 17
I see you feel strongly about this & you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I think our mental models of web APIs are very different.
Reply Retweet Like
Aleksa Sarai [see §317C.6] 10 Apr 17
Replying to @edsu @deoxxa and 2 others
I never said you couldn't put URLs in strings in JSON. The problem is that I'm not aware of any standard for doing so.
Reply Retweet Like