ActivityPub

proposed/activitypub-meta.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# ActivityPub Meta Document
+
+## 1. Summary
+
+ActivityPub
+W3C Recommendation 23 January 2018
+
+The ActivityPub protocol is a decentralized social networking protocol based upon the ActivityStreams 2.0 data format. It provides a client to server API for creating, updating and deleting content, as well as a federated server to server API for delivering notifications and content.
+
+## 2. Why Bother?
+
+If we implement the so-called ActivityPub protocol to enable Joomla Websites to talk to each other; that’s the basis of the “federation”. Federation is what you already know from e-mail, even if you may not know it by name: It’s the concept of servers hosting users that can talk to users from other servers. That protocol pins down on paper how exactly such inter-server communication would look like, using a vocabulary that can be applied for a variety of purposes.
+Think of a social network as any piece of software that implements ActivityPub. That software can be wildly different in how it looks and what it does! But the social graph–what we call the people and their connections–is the same.
+
+## 3. Scope
+
+### 3.1 Goals
+
+- Possibility to follow an author on a Joomla Website
+- Getting information, if there is a new article of that author in an ActivityPub enabled software (e.g. Mastodon)
+
+### 3.2 Non-Goals
+
+## 4. Approaches
+
+### 4.1 Approach 1
+
+#### 4.1.1 Projects Using Approach 1
+
+### 4.2 Approach 2
+
+#### 4.2.1 Projects Using Approach 2
+
+### 4.3 Comparison of Approaches
+
+### 4.4 Chosen Approach
+
+## 5. Design Decisions
+
+## 6. People
+
+### 6.1 Editor(s)
+
+* Hagen Graf <[email protected]>
+
+### 6.2 Sponsors
+
+* N/A
+
+### 6.3 Contributors
+
+* N/A
+
+## 7. Votes
+
+* **Entrance Vote:** _(not yet taken)_
+* **Acceptance Vote:** _(not yet taken)_
+
+## 8. Relevant Links
+
+https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
+
+## 9. Errata
+
+...

proposed/activitypub.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# \<Subject>
+
+This document describes ...
+
+The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
+"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
+interpreted as described in [RFC 2119][].
+
+[RFC 2119]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
+
+### References
+
+- [RFC 2119][]: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
+
+## 1. Specification
+
+### 1.1 Spec A
+
+### 1.2 Spec B
+
+## 2. Interfaces
+
+### 2.1 Interface A
+
+The following interface MUST be implemented by compatible ...
+
+```php
+namespace ...;
+
+interface ...
+{
+}
+```
+
+### 2.2 Inteface B
+
+The following interface MUST be implemented by compatible ...
+
+```php
+namespace ...;
+
+interface ...
+{
+}
+```