Post #2835036

@smallcircles@social.coop @strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz The biggest problem in AP is not these differences of opinion, Yes, and this is precisely why I am always a bit worried about sounding offensive in these discussions. I am not really criticizing the people involved, or claiming that one implementation is “wrong” and another is “right”. What I am trying to say is that situations like this ideally should not happen at all if the protocol description were precise enough — for example, in the same spirit that a .proto definition in gRPC describes interfaces, semantics, and expectations with very little ambiguity. Because if the goal is to create a federated protocol that can be adopted broadly, across very different implementations and even very different use cases, then interoperability issues should ideally emerge from explicit extensions or deliberate incompatibilities, not from uncertainty around interpretation itself. So to me it feels less like a technical criticism of ActivityPub specifically, and more like a difference in protocol design mindset.