Today I discovered an interesting inconsistency in Activity Streams specs while investigating [a Fedify issue].
-
Today I discovered an interesting inconsistency in Activity Streams specs while investigating a Fedify issue.
The question: How should we interpret URLs like
"icon": "https://example.com/avatar.png"?JSON-LD context (https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams
@type: "@id"→ “This is an IRI reference, dereference it to fetch an ActivityStreams object.”Activity Streams Primer: “assume that a bare string is the
hrefof aLinkobject, not anid” (no dereferencing)Result: JSON-LD processor-based implementations try to parse PNG files as JSON and fail.
Turns out w3c/activitystreams#595 already discusses the same issue for
hrefproperties. I added a note thaticon,image, etc. have the same problem.Once again reminded of how tricky spec work can be…
#ActivityPub #Fedify #ActivityStreams #fedidev #specifications
-
Today I discovered an interesting inconsistency in Activity Streams specs while investigating a Fedify issue.
The question: How should we interpret URLs like
"icon": "https://example.com/avatar.png"?JSON-LD context (https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams
@type: "@id"→ “This is an IRI reference, dereference it to fetch an ActivityStreams object.”Activity Streams Primer: “assume that a bare string is the
hrefof aLinkobject, not anid” (no dereferencing)Result: JSON-LD processor-based implementations try to parse PNG files as JSON and fail.
Turns out w3c/activitystreams#595 already discusses the same issue for
hrefproperties. I added a note thaticon,image, etc. have the same problem.Once again reminded of how tricky spec work can be…
#ActivityPub #Fedify #ActivityStreams #fedidev #specifications
@hongminhee It's a place where our loosey goosey style goes into nondeterminism. We should tighten it up in the next version. My main answer would be: publishers, don't do that.
-
undefined Piero Bosio ha condiviso questa discussione
