Evan Prodromou

Absolutely reasonable, this is an error in the text that can be misleading. I've created an erratum here: https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_errata/Proposed Which reads: In section 7.1.2, the sentence The server MUST only...

I'm removing "Needs errata" since it's written. I'll check to see if we've made the group decision yet.

This was initiated by Bob Wyman on the public-swicg mailing list.

In terms of work to be done, I think there are a few items to discuss. - Adding a primer page on the topic. There doesn't seem to be one...

I'd like to test this with JSON-LD parsers to see what the actual behaviour is. I'm particulary interested in if there's any daylight whatsoever between the `@id` property and the...

I think an Erratum is necessary here. Taking out the reference to using null, we could have something like the following: _...all objects distributed by the ActivityPub protocol MUST have...

We could also add something like this? _Consumers MAY treat a `null` value for the `id` property as if the property was not defined. Publishers SHOULD NOT use `null` for...

And, honestly, I hate the "MUST unless you don't want to" phrasing. Is it too late to just do this? _...all objects distributed by the ActivityPub protocol SHOULD have unique...

I've added an [erratum](https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_errata/Proposed) to remove the erroneous null option. We can review this at the next CG meeting.

CFC added: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2025Nov/0016.html