> and anyway provides a fallback to direct streaming (HTTP), so that any browser can interact.
Ah, that's awesome. That definitely assuages my fears somewhat.
> [ActivityPub] In no way it defines how you access media.
ActivityStreams (which ActivityPub builds on) does define an attachment property for messages [1]. Is this not a standard mechanism for clients to access ActivityPub media (via the attachment's type and url)?
It is, but I don't see how web browsers would need to interact directly with ActivityPub. That's just a way to settle on a json structure everyone will be using in their web application (that acts as AP client), as is the case in Mastodon.
Here with PeerTube the client interface doesn't interact with AP to watch videos or get them. It just requests the list directly to the server.
Ah, that's awesome. That definitely assuages my fears somewhat.
> [ActivityPub] In no way it defines how you access media.
ActivityStreams (which ActivityPub builds on) does define an attachment property for messages [1]. Is this not a standard mechanism for clients to access ActivityPub media (via the attachment's type and url)?
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-attach...