reesericci

Thank you for the critique!

What’s the rationale for the domain? I first thought that you intend the catalogue to be server-wide just like other endpoints properties, but that doesn’t seem to be the case since you use it for both the “actor-specific” and “server-level” catalogues.

Yes, there are both actor and server-level endpoints. Currently, the way it works is depending on the type of actor determines which it is, like for a Service or Application actor, that’s a public catalog, whereas, if it’s a User or Person, it’s actor-specific. It’s a bit clunky, let me know if you have any ideas on how to improve it.

This looks a little out-of-place to me for this FEP, as it’s not specific to the catalogue proposal. Maybe something like this could be proposed for consideration in the FEP-9098 discussion thread instead?

Yes, good call.

I think it’s too harsh to say that emojis that’s absent in the actor-specific catalogue is not available for use by that actor, because some implementations allow users to use any emojis, including ones from remote servers (e.g. for repeating a FEP-c0e0 emoji reaction that’s made by a remote user).

If this is intended to be a hint for the client rather than a strict authorisation of usage, I think “suggests that” (instead of “means that”) sounds appropriate here.

Maybe something like “Removing an emoji from an actor-specific catalog means that the emoji should not be surfaced as a member of the catalog by clients” could work?

Since the category is user-facing, I believe it should have an internationalisation consideration. My idea is to change the property’s range to an object that can have a name property (and hence nameMap).

Good call.