FEP-4f05: Soft Deletion
-
Hi all,
Some discussion regarding NodeBB's handling of soft deleted posts and Discourse's parallel implementation prompted the creation of this FEP, which attempts to describe how the concept of soft deletion can be published without the introduction of new activities—using
as:Deleteas-is and relying on a backreference check for Tombstone in order to signal a soft delete.https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/4f05/fep-4f05.md
-
Hi all,
Some discussion regarding NodeBB's handling of soft deleted posts and Discourse's parallel implementation prompted the creation of this FEP, which attempts to describe how the concept of soft deletion can be published without the introduction of new activities—using
as:Deleteas-is and relying on a backreference check for Tombstone in order to signal a soft delete.https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/4f05/fep-4f05.md
@Claire, in Feb 2002, you created a topic where you mentioned soft deletes. While this isn't strictly related to
Undo(Delete), this FEP recommends thinking of a receivedDeleteas an instruction to invalidate the cache, and re-fetch, which would give you a better answer as to how to handle the receivedDeleteorUndo(Delete).Perhaps this might help.
-
Hi all,
Some discussion regarding NodeBB's handling of soft deleted posts and Discourse's parallel implementation prompted the creation of this FEP, which attempts to describe how the concept of soft deletion can be published without the introduction of new activities—using
as:Deleteas-is and relying on a backreference check for Tombstone in order to signal a soft delete.https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/4f05/fep-4f05.md
>Request the object (via its id) from the origin server directly
Couldn't
Deleteactivity itself indicate the type of operation?For example, if
Deletecontains embeddedTombstone, then treat it as a soft delete. Otherwise, treat it as a hard delete.>The Forums and Threaded Discussions Task Force (ForumWG) has identified a common nomenclature when referring to organized objects in a threaded discussion model.
I find this nomenclature a bit confusing. Commented on the linked issue.
-
>Request the object (via its id) from the origin server directly
Couldn't
Deleteactivity itself indicate the type of operation?For example, if
Deletecontains embeddedTombstone, then treat it as a soft delete. Otherwise, treat it as a hard delete.>The Forums and Threaded Discussions Task Force (ForumWG) has identified a common nomenclature when referring to organized objects in a threaded discussion model.
I find this nomenclature a bit confusing. Commented on the linked issue.
The assumption is that the object is not embedded. If it is, then it stands to reason that the embedded object can be used as is. I'll call it out in that section, thanks.
-
Hi all,
Some discussion regarding NodeBB's handling of soft deleted posts and Discourse's parallel implementation prompted the creation of this FEP, which attempts to describe how the concept of soft deletion can be published without the introduction of new activities—using
as:Deleteas-is and relying on a backreference check for Tombstone in order to signal a soft delete.https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/4f05/fep-4f05.md
@rimu@piefed.social I noticed today that PieFed supports the concept of soft deletes:
Perhaps this FEP would be of interest to you.
