Just rolled out some fediverse-related improvements:
- Now you can follow Write.as blogs from Ghost! There was a tiny bug with this that we just fixed. (WriteFreely PR: https://writefreely.org/pull/1373)
- We now support the `preview` property as a fallback for Articles. This will make your posts look much nicer as more platforms support it! (WriteFreely PR: https://writefreely.org/pull/1374)
#WriteAs #WriteFreely #WriteFreelyDev #Ghost #fediverse #ActivityPub
@write_as I like the improvements and above all the focus to adhere to Fediverse Enhancements Proposals. Thank you! In this case:
FEP-b2b8 Long-form Text
https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/b2b8/fep-b2b8.md
That is excellent and exemplary to other fediverse app developers to help the #ActivityPub ecosystem improve and become increase overall #interoperability.
PS. I noticed that no discussion thread for the #FEP was created on #SocialHub, so I took that upon me:
https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-b2b8-long-form-text/5300/2?u=aschrijver
I mentioned #WriteFreely / #WriteAs in follow-up as candidate for the Implementations sections of this FEP.
cc FEP author @evan
Hello! This is a discussion thread for the proposed FEP-b2b8: Long-form Text. Please use this thread to discuss the proposed FEP and any potential problems or improvements that can be addressed. Summary Multi-paragraph text is an important content type on the Social Web. This FEP defines best practices for representing and using properties of a long-form text object in Activity Streams 2.0. cc @eprodrom
@smallcircles @write_as Hey, Arnold. The discussions are happening in issues on Codeberg. That's linked from the FEP.
https://codeberg.org/evanp/fep/issues?q=&type=all&sort=&state=all&labels=269986
I am sorry, I overlooked that. I will honor your preference to not use the default location at SocialHub where discussions form a searchable archive and are federated out across the fediverse. Though I regret your choice, the FEP discussionsTo field expressly allows anyone the freedom to discuss in most convenient way.
Do you want me to remove the forum topic again?
@smallcircles @write_as you might be interested in reading more about our Long Form Text project at SWF.
https://socialwebfoundation.org/2025/05/01/steps-forward-in-long-form-text/
@smallcircles
> Do you want me to remove the forum topic again?
It there a way to sync a SocialHub (Discourse) topic with the issue discussion on CodeBerg (Forgejo)? Such that people can post a comment in either, and it will be seen in both? If it's not yet possible, could we make it a project?
This being a forum federation question, I'm cc'ing in @angusmcleod from Discourse, @devnull from NodeBB, @nutomic from Lemmy, and @melroy from Mbin.
There are multiple ways. Discourse has a plugin for Github I think, that might be adapted to work with Codeberg.
A step further would be to rely on ActivityPub and/or @forgefed to facilitate such integration.
There's also a more procedural question. Why would we want to connect these? Maybe each tool has its own thing where it excels and should not be used as Swiss army knife.
The federation of SocialHub has upsides, as well as downsides to be considered more closely.
(1/2)
@smallcircles
> A step further would be to rely on ActivityPub and/or @forgefed to facilitate such integration
Using the AP features in Discourse, and @forgefed support for AP in @Forgejo, would be really neat.
If ForgeFed can sync issues between forges using AP, I imagine it's possible to sync one with a forum topic. If it can't yet, maybe the sync feature developed for the threadiverse could be adapted for use in the forge-verse?
(2/2)
@smallcircles
> Why would we want to connect these? Maybe each tool has its own thing where it excels and should not be used as Swiss army knife
Funny, reminds me of what folks asked when we turned up on Meta to propose adding AP support to Discourse ; ) The 3 obvious benefits to me are;
* enabling any dev with a SH account to comment on FEP issues without a CodeBerg account
* wider discoverability of issue threads
* avoiding the sort of discussion fragmentation noted upthread
Re:SocialHub federation. Discussion fragmentation may be one of those downsides. There's more fragmentation now, because microblogging has become the primary way to discuss topics. And microblogging is super fragmentary and fleety, and only reaches whomever is mentioned and how it then randomly disperses by boosts. There may be easier access, at the cost of less community.
I don't know the prio's on forge federation, but there's activity.. https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/federation
(1/2)
@smallcircles
> There's more fragmentation now, because microblogging has become the primary way to discuss topics
I agree, but that's an entirely unrelated topic. We're talking specifically about syncing the FEP issues on CB with corresponding topics on SH. Instead of discussion about a given FEP being split between both. That's it.
(2/2)
I can see pros and cons in being able to follow the FEP issues from elsewhere in the fediverse, with replies sent back to the synced issue. It could enable wider participation, but could also increase bikeshedding and mod workload.
I guess my next question is; can we sync the relevant issue/topic pair without exposing it to the fediverse? If so, I'd suggest starting there, and then having a discussion about whether to federate more widely (in its own issue/topic pair : )
@strypey I was mentioning that, because originally the issues weren't meant to be discussion threads, only to be used editorially. And each FEP an associated SocialHub discussion thread, always. And tracking issues pointing to that. Tracking issues are also not for discussion.
It changed later to 'we prefer SocialHub, but you can discuss everywhere', and that is where exceptions like Evan's now exist. Idk if that happens often. @silverpill is the hero of FEP 'commons janitoring' to ask about it
@smallcircles @strypey It happens occasionally, and I often find issue trackers more convenient than long discussion threads. In a thread, suggestions and objections can be lost, but issue tracker keeps everything organized.
Tracking issues are also not for discussion.
Yes, they are supposed to be a place where links to discussions are collected. I just added a link to this thread to FEP-b2b8 tracking issue: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/issues/441#issuecomment-5520425
The [proposal](https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/b2b8/fep-b2b8.md) has been received. Thank you! This issue tracks discussions and updates to the proposal during the `DRAFT` period. Please post links to relevant discussions as comment to this issue. `dateReceived`: 2024-1...
Thanks @silverpill and @smallcircles for the context. I now understand why my syncing suggestion doesn't really work for the FEP process.
But it would be great if FEP discussion threads hosted elsewhere were at least puppeted in the FEP category on SH, so all FEP commentary can be browsed in one place.
I agree in principle. But the prime reason of the current set up is to serve the FEP author and their favorite place for discussion.
After a submission it is the author's responsibility to steward the FEP through the process. It is their preferred place to gather feedback. From their perspective a separate SocialHub thread, where they may not (want to) be member, is not a service.
WriteFreely
Write.as
wakest ⁂
just small circles 🕊
Evan Prodromou
Strypey
silverpill
Mario Vavti