Distinguish user-facing from dev-facing language

[nedjo]

Ideally users and even site admins will be insulated from the technical details. So possibly:

• Fediverse for user- and admin-facing strings.
• ActivityPub for code and developer-facing strings.

Do these potentially belong in distinct modules? Should ActivityPub be an API module while Fediverse provides a UI? Related: #1

[swentel]

Interesting thought: almost like json api and json api extras.

I have a feeling this question will answer itself after a while. I had the same with the IndieWeb module: the more code and implementation is written, the more you start to seeing the big picture clearly and start moving things to dedicated modules if necessary.

Note: that's how I write stuff usually when I start with implementations of concepts I don't fully grasp yet .. I don't plan too much in the beginning, but that's just me :)

[ekes]

+1 for using activitypub (and the terms in the spec object, actor, target, action. I've also been trying to Capitalise them when it's referencing the ap vocabulary Person object type for example. Gets confusing with machine_names that can't then be capitalised though).

+1 for using Fediverse for the user and admin facing strings. It makes much more sense as Fediverse integration than activitypub spec integration.