From a practical sense, ActivityPub may be the obvious choice as it gives easier interop with the largest federated platforms.

But what else? There are existing platforms built on these protocols, such as movim for xmpp, and another for matrix I forget.

From a technical standpoint, are there any major pros and cons?

  • @rglullis@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    716 days ago

    And… that if “activitypub just works” , so does XMPP.

    And… XMPP servers offer better performance and taking less resources than any of the leading AP projects.

    And… XMPP already has E2EE.

    • Kairos
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      And what do you do about other clients? What happens when the user wants to clear messages on the server when they’re fetched, but doesn’t want to do that for the social network rooms? What about moderation.

      XMPP is good at a very specific thing and I don’t think its users would like all the necesary changes.

        • Kairos
          link
          English
          116 days ago

          My point is that the protocol doesn’t work well for the use case.

          • @rglullis@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            316 days ago

            And my point is that the your complaints are not related to the protocol, but the applications using it.

            Not only that, we are talking about different layers of the OSI model. XMPP should be compared with HTTP, not ActivityPub. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone from implementing the ActivityStreams vocabulary on XMPP.