I’m busy right now, will look for the exact code snippets later, but in summary from what i read earlier when i first came across these claims last month or so, any activity that happens with a comment is also federated: Creation, editing and deletion, so barring any cache that will eventually expire, or an instance going down, the lifetime of a message will be replicated across anything that federates with it.
And yes, a patched instance could just ignore deletion and save everything, but at that point you’re fighting a rogue element and the rules change, we’re discussing the normal, designed behavior of the software.
Yeah I understand that of course a random instance could just change the code so that nothing is deleted. However, what I meant is that in the documentation states that the instance can use this Tombstone instead of deleting and it seems like it is completely “fine” and within the rules to do so. I am referring to this:
… the server receiving the delete activity SHOULD remove its representation of the object with the same id, and MAY replace that representation with a Tombstone object.
So they should do it but it is also OK to use this different thing. Or am I misunderstanding this comment and it means that instances need to delete the object, and after the fact it is allowed for instances to furthermore make this Tombstone to somehow track that yes there was a deleted object here?
I’m busy right now, will look for the exact code snippets later, but in summary from what i read earlier when i first came across these claims last month or so, any activity that happens with a comment is also federated: Creation, editing and deletion, so barring any cache that will eventually expire, or an instance going down, the lifetime of a message will be replicated across anything that federates with it.
And yes, a patched instance could just ignore deletion and save everything, but at that point you’re fighting a rogue element and the rules change, we’re discussing the normal, designed behavior of the software.
Yeah I understand that of course a random instance could just change the code so that nothing is deleted. However, what I meant is that in the documentation states that the instance can use this Tombstone instead of deleting and it seems like it is completely “fine” and within the rules to do so. I am referring to this:
From https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#delete-activity-inbox
So they should do it but it is also OK to use this different thing. Or am I misunderstanding this comment and it means that instances need to delete the object, and after the fact it is allowed for instances to furthermore make this Tombstone to somehow track that yes there was a deleted object here?