'Zot6' is sometimes mentioned in discussions with Hubzilla folks to distinguish that project's frozen protocol implementation (nearly always displayed as 'Zot6/Nomad'); but if you're speaking in general terms about the underlying nomadic protocol in documentation, be advised that some folks in the fediverse get pretty riled up over dead-naming.
we are basically forking Nomad/Zot by doing so
But the upcoming version of Hubzilla 10 is going to update Zot 6 to support Mike's conversation containers rather than upgrade to the latest version of Nomad.
So, the question becomes, is Hubzilla going to eventually adopt Nomad 12 (or whatever version it is now), or are we going to continue to modify Zot 6 so that it deviates into being a separate protocol from Nomad/Zot6?(..)If we upgrade, then it becomes Nomad.
A look at the specifications of Zot6 and Nomad does not reveal the actual differences.
the documents seam almost identical
using zot just the first 2
Are you absolutely sure aboutthat?So if I [b]use[/b] [size=large]HTML[/size] to write a [i]post[/i], then that works too. It is converted to [url=https://hzhelp.pepecyb.hu/en/usermanual/bbcode.html]bbCode[/url] anyway.
I`m not able to tell what the differences are, maybe someone can explain
I would rather call it a "backport".
Whatever Mike changes on Forte, he changes on (streams) as well.
Nomad sends messages encoded in ActivityStreams (the same serialisation format used by ActivityPub). As does Zot6. So technically the only difference between an ActivityPub message and a Nomad message and a Zot6 message is that they use different delivery services. In the case of Zot6 and Nomad, these delivery systems support nomadic identity.
(*) ActivityStreams is a data serialisation protocol. ActivityPub and Nomad are message transfer protocols. Both of these are consumers of ActivityStreams formatted data. The most notable difference is that ActivityPub requires all identities to be DNS-based URLs. Nomad identities are cryptographically derived and are not permanently tied to any single DNS address.
After Mike left and handed over the Hubzilla project, the protocol (in the above sense, i.e. not the software implementation) of Hubzilla was and is Zot6.
It is probably also a fact that Nomad is possibly a completely different protocol (with regard to the technical specifications, which unfortunately cannot be found anywhere).
My current idea: I would leave it as it is for now, even if there might be a little confusion here and there about whether and how Nomad and Zot are connected. I think that's negligible.
if then
And I stop calling it the Zot Protocol, which is what I think Mike was objecting to.
...I am not sure of the state of the docs in Streams and Forte
Is it the implementations that are incompatible, or is it a protocol change that made it incompatible?
Where and how did Mike say that he rejects the continued use of the term âZotâ? Or does that just mean âZotâ (without the number behind it) and not âZot6â? Would he have no objection to the use of the term âZot6â?
The underlying protocol is now called Nomad. Has been for a few years now.'Zot6' is sometimes mentioned in discussions with Hubzilla folks to distinguish that project's frozen protocol implementation (nearly always displayed as 'Zot6/Nomad'); but if you're speaking in general terms about the underlying nomadic protocol in documentation, be advised that some folks in the fediverse get pretty riled up over dead-naming.
I also see a clear advantage in the fact that the software implementation of the Nomad protocol does not also have "Nomad" in its name: the clearer separation of the protocol and the software implementation of the protocol.
Like Us
QRator
