Re: [GNU/consensus] [Social] More internal use of Activ ityStreams?

[Mikael Nordfeldth]

02.01.2013 21:32 skrev hellekin (GNU Consensus):
> On 01/02/2013 04:48 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> > Coding for N different protocols on N different servers is not a 
> > better
> > use of time than just building support for the leading protocol.
> *** I agree that OStatus has a hand in the game, and it's mentioned 
> in
> the GNU/consensus manifesto as the main protocol to follow. But I
> disagree that the leadership position is enough to ignore other
> alternatives.

I'll just break this out and continue it here on the Consensus list. 
Original thread archived at: 
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/social/2013-01/msg00000.html

> Tent.io, to mention only one, seems promising. OStatus itself is a 
> set
> of protocols to solve a number of issues, and could as well integrate
> new ones.

I'm somewhat curious about Tent.io. Given that it's an API and not a 
protocol as well as tightly tied to HTTP. How does it intend to 
interoperate with XMPP etc? I haven't read anything about such ideas at 
all when it comes to Tent, but then again I stopped caring about Tent.io 
when I realised they were working _against_ established standards and 
methods (i.e. mapping their own kind of activitystreams or whatever).

For example smacking some kind of arbitrary HTTP-like layer on top of 
XMPP is likely to be bulky and brutal (I care about all the efforts on 
social networking with XMPP as base). In these cases a lot of work would 
have to go into standardising the behaviour and thus reinventing a wheel 
or two.

--
Mikael Nordfeldth
http://blog.mmn-o.se/
address@hidden
+46705657637