FEP 11dd: Context Ownership and Inheritance
-
This is a discussion topic for the aforementioned FEP.
FEP 7888 (trwnh@mastodon.social) defines the use of
contextto group reply-associated objects together.
FEP f228 (silverpill@mitra.social) defines how a context resolves to a collection of posts or activities, and how this can be used to backfill a conversational context.This proposal aims to extend these guidelines further by codifying:
- That a context declares an owner via
context.attributedTo. - The situations where a context may be inherited by new objects.
This FEP is a descendant of 7888 and sits alongside f228.
- That a context declares an owner via
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
-
The object SHOULD inherit a context other than its own.
I don't quite understand what "its own context" means here. Do root (top-level) objects have their own contexts?
When publishing an object with a context property outside the local domain, the context owner SHOULD be addressed (to, cc, bto, bcc).
I think the owner should be addressed even if the context is local, because
toandccare important for access control. -
The object SHOULD inherit a context other than its own.
I don't quite understand what "its own context" means here. Do root (top-level) objects have their own contexts?
When publishing an object with a context property outside the local domain, the context owner SHOULD be addressed (to, cc, bto, bcc).
I think the owner should be addressed even if the context is local, because
toandccare important for access control.silverpill@mitra.social You’re right! I should be clearer in my wording on both those points
-
The object SHOULD inherit a context other than its own.
I don't quite understand what "its own context" means here. Do root (top-level) objects have their own contexts?
When publishing an object with a context property outside the local domain, the context owner SHOULD be addressed (to, cc, bto, bcc).
I think the owner should be addressed even if the context is local, because
toandccare important for access control.> I don’t quite understand what “its own context” means here.
This line was lifted from an earlier draft where additional examples of defining ones own context, removing a context, or inheriting a context, is spelled out explicitly.
I realized after drafting that that was already more or less described in 7888 and so brevity won out.
I will need to reword that.
-
@julian i am still kind of confused what this fep adds over 7888 which already describes ownership and inheritance. i guess upgrading some SHOULDs to MUSTs? which i don't think are actually MUSTs in practice... any missing info can be skipped over.
