Both could be programmed. Someone could also copy the Lemmy API and use arbitrary Lemmy apps with Piefed.
This seems like an interesting idea. On one hand, I could see how it could hamper development, but on the other hand, it would be nice if all of the threadiverse platforms (Lemmy, Piefed, Sublinks, Mbin?) were standardized enough that the apps could be interoperable. I think giving users multiple options for how to access and interact with the content would be good for the fediverse as a whole.
That would be nice. In practice, not even ActivityPub as the underlying protocol is standardized enough to ensure interoperability between the microblogging, threaded conversations, videos, etc. As far as I understand, it’s pretty minimal and even voting etc isn’t as standardized as it needed to be. So I don’t have much hope for another protocol being that well-defined and agreed upon, if we don’t even have that.
That being said… ActivityPub defines server to server and client to server communication. I think a good way to tacke this is do away with extra Lemmy, Piefed, Mastodon and Peertube clients/apps, and have all the apps speak ActivityPub with the servers/instances. That’s already implemented on the server side. It’d do away with implementing any extra APIs. And make any app compatible with any Fediverse project. But we need a new ActivityPub protocol revision for that. Well-defined and with quite some extras. compared to what we have now. And everyone needs to agree on this and implement it. But in my eyes that would solve a lot of issues that are currently slowing down the Fediverse.
@threelonmusketeers@hendrik This is how many Fediverse microblogging systems currently work; they serve the Mastodon API for client to server (e.g. app to server) interactions. GoToSocial doesn’t even provide any user interface; you use it from some app originally designed for Mastodon. Why? I think because Mastodon’s HTTP API is simpler, better documented and well-tested compared to something like ActivityPub’s Client-To-Server API.
This seems like an interesting idea. On one hand, I could see how it could hamper development, but on the other hand, it would be nice if all of the threadiverse platforms (Lemmy, Piefed, Sublinks, Mbin?) were standardized enough that the apps could be interoperable. I think giving users multiple options for how to access and interact with the content would be good for the fediverse as a whole.
That would be nice. In practice, not even ActivityPub as the underlying protocol is standardized enough to ensure interoperability between the microblogging, threaded conversations, videos, etc. As far as I understand, it’s pretty minimal and even voting etc isn’t as standardized as it needed to be. So I don’t have much hope for another protocol being that well-defined and agreed upon, if we don’t even have that.
That being said… ActivityPub defines server to server and client to server communication. I think a good way to tacke this is do away with extra Lemmy, Piefed, Mastodon and Peertube clients/apps, and have all the apps speak ActivityPub with the servers/instances. That’s already implemented on the server side. It’d do away with implementing any extra APIs. And make any app compatible with any Fediverse project. But we need a new ActivityPub protocol revision for that. Well-defined and with quite some extras. compared to what we have now. And everyone needs to agree on this and implement it. But in my eyes that would solve a lot of issues that are currently slowing down the Fediverse.
@threelonmusketeers @hendrik This is how many Fediverse microblogging systems currently work; they serve the Mastodon API for client to server (e.g. app to server) interactions. GoToSocial doesn’t even provide any user interface; you use it from some app originally designed for Mastodon. Why? I think because Mastodon’s HTTP API is simpler, better documented and well-tested compared to something like ActivityPub’s Client-To-Server API.
@fediverse