always wondered this, but kept forgetting to post it
eg users would be on @grant@toast.ooo and a community would be on @canvas@group.toast.ooo or something like that
then it would still follow the AP spec but still allow for identical identifiers (like a user account being @sc07@toast.ooo and a community also being !sc07@toast.ooo)
but if you search a community up on another fedi platform, it won’t always pick the community or the user (if they have the same name)
as far as the other platforms know, there’s one actor but points to two different accounts
afaik the webfinger spec doesn’t allow for multiple actors having the same identifier, like how lemmy does it (here’s what gets returned when a username matches a community and user)
And that’s why users get
@userand communities are!community. I’m not sure what you’re asking for tbh, I think the current system works fine, searching could be easier, but I haven’t seen anyone confused by the difference there.Nested DNS is a pain, and not really what it’s meant to do, that’s why we don’t use nested DNS. If you take DNS away as a solution (because it’s not really one), then what is currently happening makes a lot of sense.
@userworks on all fediverse platforms, but!communitydoes noti was proposing for this to be a possible solution to make it work across all existing platforms w/o requiring all the other platforms to support lemmy’s system
Ohhkay I finally get what you’re suggesting now. From something like Mastodon there’s no clear way to specify.
Ehh, something to be solved but not a huge deal IMO. I think it’d have to be something custom, as there’s no concept on Mastodon like Lemmy’s communities, but I still stand by DNS isn’t the way to solve it. Mixing it in with a hashtag might be a good way, where if you could “subscribe” to a hashtag over there, like
#community@instance.tld, but then we’re just talking about syntax. I actually do think there needs to be a standardization on “groups” then across the fediverse, and since Lemmy is the only one I’ve seen with a group syntax, I’d just suggest we standardize!