wakest likes your bugs ⁂If a fediverse post contains something that the receiving server doesn't support, we need a defined way to show that to the receiving user. For example if I make a pixelfed post with 6 photos and mastodon only shows 4 of them, there needs to be a way to signal to the receiving side that there is content they can't see. This has been an issue forever but one of those little edges that makes the whole experience worse for everyone. cc @andypiper any ideas for how we could make progress on this?
d@nny disc@ mc²@liaizon @andypiper i was disappointed that the mastodon quoting fep specifically identified that a quote would be invisible to software that failed to implement the spec, particularly since there was so much emphasis elsewhere to characterize failure to implement in starkly moralizing terms. one would think that if we intend to use terms like consent, the remote end failing to implement the spec would be able to understand the terms of the interaction. gts reply controls (which the fep cites, but mastodon has no intent to implement) do in fact provide just this kind of fallback, and in all respects demonstrates a more sincere respect for consent.
@liaizon @andypiper there is a further angle which i am thoroughly unfamiliar with how to handle but seems quite relevant in which the mastodon quote fep requires the cryptographic redaction of a quote approval's target when propagating it across servers. this is raised as a security concern but it also results in servers being used to propagate information that they cannot themselves validate (and the quote fep does not impose hashing, which means a quote approval or rejection can be fabricated from whole cloth while remaining hidden to the intermediary).
@liaizon @andypiper i mention it here although it does not pertain to post content as per OP because in both cases i feel there is a gesture towards a more general protocol (gts stamps, redaction of target, hashing of info) that would be appropriate to codify in the very general sense of OP. since we're using something like json-LD which intends to be introspectable, codifying information that is or isn't supported, or requirements to impose for downstream, seems achievable in ways an alternative encoding loses out on.