Post #2771051

2026-05-22 23:07 UTC

Wasn't aware this was a problem? Figured the redirects would be okay. The canonical location of a FEP is on Codeberg, but no, it is not a problem. #2 I suppose supercedes is the incorrect term. It extends fe34, in a way. Would that be acceptable? Definitely not meaning to imply that fe34 is insufficient in any way. "Extends" is fine, I just think you're describing a reciprocal claim from FEP-fe34, so you could use that term (or maybe FEP-fe34 needs to be updated if "reciprocal claim" is not a good name for this mechanism?)

Replies (1)

@julian@activitypub.space 2026-05-23 01:07

@silverpill@mitra.social said: Extends" is fine, I just think you're describing a reciprocal claim from FEP-fe34, so you could use that term (or maybe FEP-fe34 needs to be updated if "reciprocal claim" is not a good name for this mechanism?) I don't know if this is truly a reciprocal claim. My understanding from a reading of the relevant section from fe34 suggests a claim of A → B is reciprocal if there is an inverse claim B → A. fe34 solidifies the concept of same-origin trust (which iirc is only something like a line or two in AP spec?). baf5 builds upon that with an additional opt-in specificity. So baf5 assumes fe34 compatibility, but not the inverse. But we're splitting hairs I think :smile:

Open ##2773748