@strypey Federated #Dreamwidth would be SO AWESOME and do much to extend the platform's reach. Wohali in the linked discussion makes a valid point, though, that Dreamwidth circles are much finer-grained than Mastodon's "folower only" security level. Theoretically, though, DW could continue to have its (awesome) access controls on its own site while being compatible with federation on its outward face? If that makes sense?
@lj_writes I agree with Mike here, AP provides for many functions that aren't yet implemented across all the #fediverse apps, because they couldn't be federated under #OStatus (the older standard #Mastodon adopted from #StatusNet / #GNUsocial) or choices were made not to use them (eg groups in Mastodon). @mike can you recommend the DW crew a more general resource on implementing AP than the Mastodon one they are looking at?
@strypey @UserCoffee The devs certainly seem supportive of other people running the DW code, http://wiki.dwscoalition.org/wiki/index.php/Dreamwidth_Installation and list interoperability among their guiding principles. https://www.dreamwidth.org/legal/principles In the end it's a question of priority and developer time, but If someone started, say, running a DW instance and successfully implemented ActivityPub that may get the devs' attention.
@strypey Regarding privacy settings (e.g. for circles) this article is very useful, assuming it's still accurate:
I can't imagine DW wanting to entwine their privacy settings with ActivityPub so long as those settings are basically a suggestion. Nothing stopping them from just using AP for public posts though, which would still be valuable imo.