74 lines
No EOL
4.6 KiB
Markdown
74 lines
No EOL
4.6 KiB
Markdown
+++
|
|
date = 2023-05-02
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
fwiw my take about quotes is that either
|
|
|
|
- they're just links with special tag markup that lets them be identifiable as activitypub objects
|
|
- they're supported more at the protocol level a la Announce with content, or possibly a "quotes" collection a la "likes" and "shares"
|
|
- they represent a new context (assuming mastodon ever adopts a first-class concept of conversations or threads, instead of relying solely on inReplyTo chains for logical grouping)
|
|
|
|
my further idea was to decide if it notifies based on whether the type is Link or Mention (a la webmentions)
|
|
|
|
in an alternate timeline we could have had generic rendering of activities based on name/summary/content and maybe actor/type/object
|
|
|
|
such a generic renderer would be something like...
|
|
|
|
> <darius> <Announce> <some-post>
|
|
> <Announce.summary>
|
|
> <Announce.content>
|
|
|
|
filling in the last two lines for summary and content
|
|
|
|
> Darius boosted a post: "The problem with this is..."
|
|
> "I disagree with this analysis."
|
|
|
|
also this just highlights what i think a "quote post" should really be: more like a "loud reply". in a more ideal world it would use `inReplyTo` + a new `context`.
|
|
|
|
yes, a regular "reply" is in effect a "quote" the second you embed the post you are replying to. look at the IndieWeb for example. what is the functional difference?
|
|
|
|
the problem of course is that mastodon doesnt show replies in timelines, and doesn't have a proper concept of contexts aside from reply-chains. but at least half of that is a matter of policy, so it could be changed.
|
|
|
|
imagine a property `toot:quoteReply` that is a boolean. if true, it embeds the `inReplyTo`post above your post. it also sends such posts to follower timelines.
|
|
|
|
fundamentally there's the intent and the interpretation, intent can be seen as how you author the activity, interpretation is the processing rules applied by the receiver. if this were a proper spec, the two would be the same and there'd be no ambiguity, but... well, y'know.
|
|
|
|
there's also the rest of the ecosystem of course, there's the "tag a substring of your content" as Foundkey does, in the past there was even "attach the post you're quoting" which Hubzilla and/or Zap did, there was also the proposal to "add content on Announce" which gargron and lain favored but never implemented. and then there's the two new ones -- "just make it a special type of reply" as i propose, and "just make it a new Activity" as you expressed just now
|
|
|
|
we should focus on generic data modeling, describing resources and how they are related. mastodon doesn't do a good job of that, sure... and that's how we end up with leaky abstractions. it's a good idea to leave as much of the app-specific stuff out of the data model as we can. otherwise we just end up with The Mastodon Protocol which is built to interop with the mastodon app specifically
|
|
|
|
like we have tag, attachment, inReplyTo, Announce...
|
|
|
|
- tag = describing entities within the natural language properties (often microsyntaxes)
|
|
|
|
- attachment = sidecar entities (not necessarily media)
|
|
|
|
- inReplyTo = referencing a prior object (or objects) for which your current object can be considered a response
|
|
|
|
- Announce = add to `shares` collection if present (this is the weakest one, to be fair)
|
|
|
|
> I do agree with you that quotes are basically a form of loud reply
|
|
|
|
semantics aside, i think functionally the difference is really the fallback
|
|
|
|
- an Announce with content is basically "reshare with additional content" semantically, but it falls back to being a regular boost, and to control quotes you'd need to similarly be able to control boosts
|
|
|
|
- a Note with inReplyTo + quoteReply=true would fall back to a regular reply. this means that when reply controls get added, you get quote control "for free"
|
|
|
|
the other functional difference between those two is whether the "quote" gets added to `shares` or to `replies`
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
also tangentially i've thought about what people think a quote is vs what it actually is, the dimensions, its primary function, etc
|
|
|
|
to me, the way i see quotes is essentially as a "loud reply" or as a "breakout thread".
|
|
|
|
the former use-case could be handled by reply+boost. this is actually very easy in the API: just make a button that fires off 2 API calls.
|
|
|
|
the latter could be handled by copypasting a link into a new post. this is much harder to detect and display. optinally mention
|
|
|
|
really the problem with twitter "quote tweets" is that they conflated the two use-cases
|
|
|
|
you were *always* notified, regardless of whether someone was talking "about" you or "to" you (no consideration for replies)
|
|
|
|
plus the fact it was a new thread was stripping context, you could no longer see all the posts in one thread ("breaking out" isn't always wanted) |