Evan Prodromou

I added this [erratum](https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_errata/Proposed): > Section 3.1, "Object identifiers", should read in part: However, for client to server communication, a server receiving an object posted to the outbox with no...

I'm not sure what responsibility we have to document terms that are in our context document. I think that terms in our *namespace*, like `alsoKnownAs`, should probably be documented along...

For #622

2025-05-11T21:15:58.442Z info: 200 GET / (-) 2025-05-11T21:15:58.541Z warn: Error fetching https://adhd.irenes.space/users/ireneista/statuses/01JV0GTQ5SF7W836VQME1W2SXH: 500 Internal Server Error 2025-05-11T21:15:58.543Z error: Error status 500: No such object: https://adhd.irenes.space/users/ireneista/statuses/01JV0GTQ5SF7W836VQME1W2SXH 2025-05-11T21:15:58.544Z debug: Error: No such object:...

I think one of the big problems with this section is the passive voice -- "Activities are sent", "recipients are determined". Changing these to use an active voice makes the...

I also think this architecture would benefit from a primer page describing how and when and by whom addressees are determined.

I think the second bullet point may be a reference to inbox forwarding, since it is linked. If that is the case, it is a clumsy construction, but doesn't seem...

If we reduce the effort here to changing from "inbox delivery" to "inbox forwarding", I think it's much easier. I'll add an erratum for that issue. I think we still...

Here's the final text of the erratum: > In section 7 "Server to Server Interactions", the link to Section 7.1.2 "Forwarding from Inbox" should be labeled "inbox forwarding". This dodges...

I agree that this is a very interesting problem for ActivityPub implementers. I think that it does not reach the level of an since it was not included in the...