Mastodawn

I have deeply mixed feelings about #ActivityPub's adoption of JSON-LD, as someone who's spent way too long dealing with it while building #Fedify.

Part of me wishes it had never happened. A lot of developers jump into ActivityPub development without really understanding JSON-LD, and honestly, can you blame them? The result is a growing number of implementations producing technically invalid JSON-LD. It works, sort of, because everyone's just pattern-matching against what Mastodon does, but it's not correct. And even developers who do take the time to understand JSON-LD often end up hardcoding their documents anyway, because proper JSON-LD processor libraries simply don't exist for many languages. No safety net, no validation, just vibes and hoping you got the @context right. Naturally, mistakes creep in.

But then the other part of me thinks: well, we're stuck with JSON-LD now. There's no going back. So wouldn't it be nice if people actually used it properly? Process the documents, normalize them, do the compaction and expansion dance the way the spec intended. That's what Fedify does.

Here's the part that really gets to me, though. Because Fedify actually processes JSON-LD correctly, it's more likely to break when talking to implementations that produce malformed documents. From the end user's perspective, Fedify looks like the fragile one. “Why can't I follow this person?” Well, because their server is emitting garbage JSON-LD that happens to work with implementations that just treat it as a regular JSON blob. Every time I get one of these bug reports, I feel a certain injustice. Like being the only person in the group project who actually read the assignment.

To be fair, there are real practical reasons why most people don't bother with proper JSON-LD processing. Implementing a full processor is genuinely a lot of work. It leans on the entire Linked Data stack, which is bigger than most people expect going in. And the performance cost isn't trivial either. Fedify uses some tricks to keep things fast, and I'll be honest, that code isn't my proudest work.

Anyway, none of this is going anywhere. Just me grumbling into the void. If you're building an ActivityPub implementation, maybe consider using a JSON-LD processor if one's available for your language. And if you're not going to, at least test your output against implementations that do.

@hongminhee from the point of view of someone who is "maintaining" a JSON-LD processing fedi software and has implemented their own JSON-LD processing library (which is, to my knowledge, the fastest in it's programming language), JSON-LD is pure overhead. there is nothing it allows for that can't be done with

1. making fields which take multiple values explicit
2. always using namespaces and letting HTTP compression take care of minimizing the transfer

without JSON-LD, fedi software could use zero-ish-copy deserialization for a majority of their objects (when strings aren't escaped) through tools like serde_json and Cow<str>, or System.Text.Json.JsonDocument. JSON-LD processing effectively mandates a JSON node DOM (in the algorithms standardized, you may be able to get rid of it with Clever Programming)

additionally, due to JSON-LD 1.1 features like @type:@json, you can not even fetch contexts ahead of time of running JSON DOM transformations, meaning all JSON-LD code has to be async (in the languages which has the concept), potentially losing out on significant optimizations that can't be done in coroutines due to various reasons (e.g. C# async methods can't have ref structs, Rust async functions usually require thread safety due to tokio's prevalence, even if they're ran in a single-threaded runtime)

this is after context processing introducing network dependency to the deserialization of data, wasting time and data on non-server cases (e.g. activitypub C2S). sure you can cache individual contexts, but then the context can change underneath you, desynchronizing your cached context and, in the worst case, opening you up to security vulnerabilities

json-ld is not my favorite part of this protocol

LinkedData.NET

A work-in-progress C# JSON-LD implementation based on System.Text.Json

Iceshrimp development

Show thread

Christine Lemmer-Webber Feb 19

@kopper @hongminhee As the person probably most responsible for making sure json-ld stayed in the spec (two reasons: because it was the only extensibility answer we had, and because we were trying hard to retain interoperability with the linked data people, which ultimately did not matter), I agree with you. I do ultimately regret not having a simpler solution than json-ld, especially because it greatly hurt our ability to sign messages, which has considerable effect on the ecosystem.

Mea culpa :\

I do think it's fixable. I'd be interested in joining a conversation about how to fix it.

Show thread

Evan Prodromou Feb 19

@cwebber @kopper @hongminhee

I don't remember it that way.

We started the WG off with AS2 being based on JSON-LD, and I don't think we ever considered removing it.

I don't think it was a decision you made on your own. I'm not sure how you would, since you edited AP and not AS2 Core or Vocabulary.

Show thread

Evan Prodromou Feb 19

@cwebber @kopper @hongminhee

I would be strongly opposed to any effort to remove JSON-LD from AS2. We use it for a lot of extensions. Every AP server uses the Security vocabulary for public keys.

Show thread

Evan Prodromou Feb 19

@cwebber @kopper @hongminhee It would be a huge backwards-incompatible change for almost zero benefit. People would still make mistakes in their ActivityPub implementations (sorry, Minhee, but that's life on an open network). We'd need to adopt another mechanism for defining extensions, and guess what? People are going to make mistakes with that, too.

Show thread

ianh

@evan @cwebber @kopper @hongminhee maybe a compromise approach could be to specify a simpler “json-ld as it is used in practice”, similar to what HTML5 was, that remains backward compatible while simplifying the spec to the point that it is actually feasible to implement