I’d like to argue that using AP is an inconsistent rule for membership. For example, Diaspora has been considered to be part of the fediverse from early on, but it doesn’t use AP.
I don’t really know where to draw the line. AP simply isn’t suitable for some applications, but it makes sense to include it for branding
Both Wikipedia and fediverse.party consider Diaspora, and a handful of other (mostly defunct) protocols as being part of the fediverse.
I don’t really like the use of AP to be a qualification of being in the fediverse. There must be a better way to qualify a platform, even if it means that use of AP is a natural consequence.
I’d like to argue that using AP is an inconsistent rule for membership. For example, Diaspora has been considered to be part of the fediverse from early on, but it doesn’t use AP.
I don’t really know where to draw the line. AP simply isn’t suitable for some applications, but it makes sense to include it for branding
I don’t know of anyone who include d*, accepting the tiny number of d* pods that also speak AP.
I mean, nostr is also NOT part of the fediverse, but another federated and decentralized network.
Both Wikipedia and fediverse.party consider Diaspora, and a handful of other (mostly defunct) protocols as being part of the fediverse.
I don’t really like the use of AP to be a qualification of being in the fediverse. There must be a better way to qualify a platform, even if it means that use of AP is a natural consequence.