Multiple handles for Activity Intents
@benpate@mastodon.social too bad I didn't know about camperjs and hand rolled my own dialogs.
Just as well, I'd want them to look like my own dialogs anyway 😁
1
Post
Replies:
10
Boosts:
5
Also, how far along are you? If you’d like, you’re welcome to use, fork, or be inspired by my JS library - https://github.com/EmissarySocial/camperjs
I still need to do some better documentation for it, but let me know if you’re interested and I’ll get writing today.
2
Multiple handles for Activity Intents
@benpate@mastodon.social too bad I didn't know about camperjs and hand rolled my own dialogs.
Just as well, I'd want them to look like my own dialogs anyway 😁
1
@julian Yeah, it’s probably a good learning experience, too.
Camper doesn’t do the dialogs, though. It’s behind the scenes turning buttons on and off based on what it can find in the WebFinger results.
It might be useful to look at - and certainly feel free to steal any good ideas for your own code.
2fa4b888-3ca7-4917-a84d-c798cd1704ad-image.jpeg
⁂ Article
2fa4b888-3ca7-4917-a84d-c798cd1704ad-image.jpeg
Multiple handles for Activity Intents
@benpate@mastodon.social focused on it today. Mostly been working on the handle registration and integration into existing action flows for guests.
On the receiving side, I have my users' webfinger supporting the Object intent.
Here are some screenshots :eyes: and yes, I am pretending to be @pfefferle@mastodon.social because I don't have an account on mastodon.social LOL... I think at the end of the day the handle doesn't really matter if it's open-ended like that... like you said, you end up with whichever user is "signed in".
3
Multiple handles for Activity Intents
@benpate@mastodon.social well, the flow does work, although Mastodon's implementation is barebones.
They support create, but only with a single argument {content}. No {inReplyTo} which severely hampers utility since any content posted will be a top-level toot. This isn't a criticism of 3b86, it is just what it is 
I might just have to test NodeBB-to-NodeBB instead.
1
You’re exactly right, and I don’t see it as a criticism at all. It’s an on-ramp that lets people explore slowly, then add capabilities gradually. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem.
I also want a “reply” activity as well, but I’m afraid nobody would support it yet.
So I look for {inReplyTo} in the create response to see if replies are possible, then register a “synthetic” activity for the application to discover. This lets me turn buttons on and off based on your servers abilities.
1
It looks beautiful! Well done! I can't wait to try it out, as soon as you have it live :)
And, I'd love to hear how it goes - if there are things we can make easier, document better, whatever. I still need to make an implementation guide, but just haven't been able to get it to the top of my stack.
One thing I've been focused on recently is including a signup link in the workflow to help brand new people. Here's a silly demo of my latest: https://qwertylicious.dev/have-you-heard-of-qwertylicious
@julian More importantly:
You’re correct. There’s a bit of a problem if I’m visiting your website and I link two accounts from the same home server. Clicking either one will likely end up using whichever one I’m “signed into” at the moment.
(Unless the server allows you to maintain multiple identities at the same time, but I don’t think that’s really a thing yet)
Fortunately, this should be pretty rare outside of dev use cases. Most people have different identities on different servers.
@julian Forst, the fun part. Yes, I did have to click through to read the whole article, then swipe back to my Mastodon client (I love you, Ivory) to actually reply.
If only there were something to smooth out this UX :)
