@julian (i am vacillating between "everything is probably an article by definition" and "practically speaking nothing too bad happens if we just call everything a note" and "we really should have just been using activities all along" and "just call them posts ffs")

@julian hot take, we should all just use sioc:Post and sidestep the entire debate

@julian i don't see why "500 characters" should matter for this tbh.

@julian @darius Hugo does the same by default, taking the first ~70 characters to the nearest word boundary (or something like that).

i'm just pointing out that there might be some needed disambiguation with how `summary` is used, to account for this kind of "excerpt vs subtitle", "duplicative vs additive" usage.

@darius @julian @technical-discussion one thing this suggests is that there is a semantic difference between "summary" in the sense of providing a short blurb that is additive to the content (kinda like a subheading!), vs "summary" in the sense of providing an excerpt to be used as a kind of preview (as in a list of articles)

@darius @julian @technical-discussion interestingly https://indieweb.org/post-type-discovery#Algorithm suggests that you check if the `name` is a prefix of `content`, and if it is, then it is a Note. perhaps similar logic can be used to check if `summary` is a prefix of `content` in some way?

i don't think this is particularly *wrong*, as generating summaries from excerpts of content is a common pattern in e.g. static site generators like Hugo. it is indeed duplicative, though!

@julian @nutomic for example, some impls attach replies even if they do not share the same context, as a compatibility measure. that kind of stuff

@julian @nutomic i think it's unavoidable that at some point you will end up having to recognize that two context ids may be equivalent, perhaps with one of them being canonical. "cached representation of remote content" is fine and there isn't necessarily a problem there. it depends on how much you embrace the idea of each publisher being allowed to make their own claims (and how much you allow "clean up" after the fact)

@julian i am still kind of confused what this fep adds over 7888 which already describes ownership and inheritance. i guess upgrading some SHOULDs to MUSTs? which i don't think are actually MUSTs in practice... any missing info can be skipped over.

@julian hi! following up on this, were there any minutes from the meeting?