Nerd about the fediverse, based in Portland, Oregon. 🌲 Nice to meet you! 👋
Blog & Podcast: jaredwhite.com
On Mastodon: @[email protected]
I’m squarely in the AT protocol is not the Fediverse camp. Fine if people want to enjoy Bluesky, but the Fediverse is built on top of the W3C protocol ActivityPub. AT is incompatible. Cool that there’s a bridge, but a bridge between incompatible protocols will always be a bit of a hack in my book.
I’m totally fine with the SWF engaging with Meta just like they would any other entity building software using ActivityPub.
Funding on the other hand is a different story. It sounds like Meta contributed to an overall fund in order to launch the SWF. OK, I suppose — but if there’s specific funding down the road for some specific project or funding in some way which appears to influence decision-making on which projects to work on or how to approach them, that’s when I have a huge problem with it.
Portland, Maine…just in case it’s not clear. (Wasn’t to me until I poked around the website a bit.)
Test in screen readers and see how content is being announced.
Lists have certain semantics which are very useful. Definitely good in navigation (aka nav > ul > li).
Grids are also useful BTW—we don’t have specific “grid” tags in HTML, but using ARIA attributes you can set up grids which might map onto div tags or even custom elements.
Personally, I’m much less concerned about ul/li than I am “div tag soup” which is a plague upon modern web development. Use div tags sparingly, and almost always see if you can reach for either (a) a more semantic HTML tag (e.g., key/val pairs should probably be dl/dt/dd tags, not list tags), or (b) custom elements…yes, authoring tags with one or more hyphens which are purely for developer comprehension and hanging CSS off of is perfectly fine—recommended in fact—and in some cases if you need some JS component logic as well, then boom you have web components.
Some things never change…
You seem to be incorrectly stating what is on Wikipedia, which leads:
That last bit is absolutely key: a collection of services using a common protocol. Imagine if two different email servers didn’t both speak SMTP. Imagine if two different web services didn’t both speak HTTP. The Internet as a singular entity is only made possible because of protocol interop between all of its constituent parts.
To say “the fediverse” is comprised of multiple incompatible protocols goes against that grain, and to go back to pre-ActivityPub-as-W3C-specification days as an argument that it’s fine to label multiple incompatible protocols as all being components of “the fediverse” is a stretch.
To me, this isn’t a let’s-agree-to-disagree-issue, honestly. While the term “fediverse” is arguably colloquial and doesn’t necessarily imply any specific technical attributes, it ceases to be useful as a term if Fediverse Platform A cannot in any way communicate with Fediverse Platform B because the two platforms happen to be using 100% incompatible protocols. Aside from a third-party bridge, the AT protocol used by Bluesky is 100% incompatible with ActivityPub used by Mastodon, Threads, and others. Therefore, they cannot both be simultaneously services in the fediverse.