Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol

Re:Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix p... by southerntofu on Sunday March 07, 2021 @05:05AM (#26374644)

Hello, i just tested it and it's really cool! Do you have any idea about ActivityPub / XMPP PubSub gateways for interoperability? From a remote look, it appears mxtoot is a bot not a proper AP gateway, and bifrost doesn't support PubSub XEP which is used for microblogging/commenting. Supporting these protocols directly would also be an option, but i don't know an ActivityPub server that supports guest accounts (but XMPP servers do).

Too bad cactus doesn't work without JavaScript. Would it be possible in the future to support submitting a comment via simple HTML form for older/slower clients? A related annoying detail, '?' key is hijacked by JavaScript so it's impossible to type it in the comment box ;-)

Thanks for this demo i'm excited for the future of federated comments

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix p... by carlbordum on Sunday March 07, 2021 @06:12AM (#26374950)

Hi, I am one of the authors of Cactus Comments.

Making Cactus Comments work without javascript would require a backend server. Right now, the frontend is actually just a special-purpose Matrix client that interacts directly with Matrix homeservers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix p... by southerntofu on Sunday March 07, 2021 @07:04AM (#26375225)

Hello, thanks for taking the time to reply. Isn't the matrix.org homeserver already a backend HTTP server? I'm unfamiliar with the matrix protocol, but isn't there a way to POST to homeserver directly so that it can authenticate and confirm with the user they intend to post this message?

[ Parent | on HN ]