▲ 49 ▼ New Social Web Working Group at W3C (socialwebfoundation.org) submitted 9 months ago by schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de to c/fediverse@lemmy.world 11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] julian@activitypub.space 2 points 9 months ago (2 children) What is this proprietary layer you speak of? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rako@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 9 months ago (1 child) The mastodon api, or the lemmy api, or the xyz api. Eagh platform has its own. Being public doesn't make it standard, hence the "proprietary" qualifier permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] julian@activitypub.space 2 points 9 months ago Oh I see. Yes, AP first apps would be great, but getting older apps connected via AP is important too. NodeBB predates ActivityPub (or came around the same time), and so we added it recently. It works quite well with our existing code. Not much of a compatibility layer. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rako@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 9 months ago (1 child) The mastodon api, or the lemmy api, or the xyz api. Eagh platform has its own. Being public doesn't make it standard, hence the "proprietary" qualifier permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] julian@activitypub.space 2 points 9 months ago Oh I see. Yes, AP first apps would be great, but getting older apps connected via AP is important too. NodeBB predates ActivityPub (or came around the same time), and so we added it recently. It works quite well with our existing code. Not much of a compatibility layer. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] julian@activitypub.space 2 points 9 months ago Oh I see. Yes, AP first apps would be great, but getting older apps connected via AP is important too. NodeBB predates ActivityPub (or came around the same time), and so we added it recently. It works quite well with our existing code. Not much of a compatibility layer. permalink fedilink source parent