code block
#Mastodon will never have full #NomadicIdentity support. That'd require its very structure to be completely overthrown. It would have to introduce the channel model from #Hubzilla and #Streams, essentially making Mastodon more complicated for newbies/X converts to get into. And either #ActivityPub would have to include nomadic identity, or Mastodon would have to switch to #Zot or #Nomad with an external connector for ActivityPub.
It could be done, but if it is done, it would most likely be just Mastodon to Mastodon...
Well, truth be told, full nomadic cloning between #Hubzilla and #Streams isn't possible either.
Vice versa is at least strongly disrecommended by Mike.
Why doesn't Hubzilla switch to Zot12?
many of the features in Nomad (Zot12) may wind up in ActivityPub, if Mike has his way.
Then it'd have to axe all connections except Zot and ActivityPub.
Of course a git allows to do that. But i see no bundling of forces rather than dispersion. Are you aware of any?
It is maintained and driven in a completely ad-hoc manner by a very loose-knit assemblage of (primarily) techno-anarchists, each with their own skills and motivations; but who ultimately despise authority and just want stuff to work.
"There's a sort of table of contents if you visit /help via the help app..."
spec
doc/site/en/
"Ideally, there'd be loads of people developing add-ons for (streams) so that those who run instances can throw together whatever they need."
"(streams) can only thrive on word-of-mouth, more than any other Fediverse project. So what we need is mouths to talk about it, especially from a user's point of view."
I'm not going back to ActivityStreams1
We don't really care whether (streams) thrives, we care whether the users thrive. We believe (streams) is a really good tool to help users get what they need and want -- they just don't know it.It's a subtle difference: help (streams) acquire more users, vs help users by bringing them to (streams).
I'm not a coder at all but i had contact to quid a few DEVs here in the past years. It comes down to me that they mostly lake of real visions but that they want to reproduce known things here in a decentralized network structure. They like to concentrate on their own projects but don't have the vision of the whole thing...e.g. even the most experienced coder don't get that something like OWA is needed here... since @Pascal (Hubzilla) proved that implementations can be done quid easy the function is still not adopted by other projects - WHY?
Because they don't see the need of a permission system and without a permission system OWA can't really work on their projects.... so the one thing needs the other thing... it all fits together here at HZ and Streams...
The lack of vision and understanding is also among net activists who are fighting for all kinds of digital freedoms. Some say that thy don't know about HZ and streams .. I know for sure - that is just NOT true at all ... it is not because the information is not there... it is just because they have NO vision but want the same as META&CO has done but just decentralized....details don't count.
Activity Streams 2.0 is a W3C Recommendation since 2017and HZ is on ActivityStreams 1 ?
?verb == http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/share
take a note: Hubzilla and (streams) need to go back to where Friendika was in 2011. And mimic everyone else's UIs so at least they look like they're cloning something.
the best would be that your work would get part of the core code - think about that
