Gregory's Server@evan i think anyone who wants a “complete” view ought to stop expecting that for replies (short of recursively crawling the whole web) and instead work toward a distribution model where conversations exist in some context and are managed by the server responsible for that context. (see fep-7888 for a description of how context could work normatively, but tldr: send your Create to the context.attributedTo and they’ll distribute an Add which you can forward to your followers)
|
7 comments
 @evan it's possible to drop someone from addressing when you reply to them. see the next reply.  @trwnh Sorry, I meant the `to` property, not the `Mention` property. I'll check to see if that drops me from `to` also. @trwnh it does! Not a fan of that feature, but OK. So that wouldn't show up in `replies`. @trwnh `replies` is still the right place to look for direct replies to a content object or activity. If someone goes out of their way not to allow their reply to go there, that's fine. @trwnh I definitely like your suggestion that `Add` or maybe `Approve` would make sense for notifications to other addressees. Way better than just injecting the `Create` into the OP's outbox. |
@trwnh I don't know what you're talking about. Every reply should include the original poster in their addressing, and the original poster's server should maintain the `replies` collection. Mastodon does this already. The `replies` collection should be an accurate record of the direct replies to a post.