I very much appreciate how Sven Knebel extensively responded to my previous posting on some Webmention issues I came across. Some of his responses do make me have new questions.

About the wrong URL, i.e. not the source of the webmention, showing up in a Webmention, Sven writes:

…. There’s a href=”https://news.indieweb.org/nl” class=”u-syndication” as the only top-level link inside his post, and no explicit url property set. This causes the microformats parser to assume that this link points to the canonical location of the post, and it is thus used for comment display. This seems like a problem with the microformats specification, and I’ll follow up on it there, but for now the easy fix would be for Frank’s posts to mark up their permalink, e.g. by adding a class=”u-url” to the link on the headline.

To me this reads as a vulnerability. I would expect my site to always take the source from the webmention message as URL. That is the only one that has been checked from my end for the presence of a reference to my site (the target). If the source page is allowed to set a different URL, even by mistake like here, that feels extremely counterintuitive. It opens it up to spam. In this case the faulty link is to a benign site, but it could have been pills or malware. It is also strange to me that my server in the comments table of the database correctly stores the source url, but in the meta data table stores a url at the discretion of the source’s website. (Meanwhile Frank has fixed it for now on his end as demonstrated by his webmention to my previous post, but my point remains)

About no content being shown of the blogpost that links to my blogposts Sven says:

This is intentional. Frank’s post only mentions your post (=includes a link to it), it is not marked up as an explicit reply. Only replies are shown with content, since for mentions this is often misleading.

This to me doesn’t make a lot of sense. [update: and for my site at least it isn’t true either, I linked back as an explicit reply to my own posting, but it still shows it as a mention].
There is indeed a difference between a direct reply to something (@Frank….) and mentioning that something as part of something else (As Frank says….). Yet that doesn’t warrant a difference in presentation, where a reply would be shown, yet for a mention just the address of the site. It also gives the source control over how something is shown on my site (by setting a different microformat for a link), while I do not have that control.
From the perspective of the reader of my blog it is not enough to only see that ‘some site links to this blogpost’ to click on that link to find out if it might be of interest, it is tremendously helpful to see a piece of that referring page to determine the context in which it refers to my blogpost.

Most if not all of my mentions of others’ blogposts aren’t meant as a direct response but as building or continuing on a line of reasoning, riffing off other people’s ideas. This is the way distributed conversations take place, how ambient humanity is established. Distributed conversations are a fundamental part of blogging to me. It’s not back and forth replies, it’s a jam session. To enjoy the jam session, you need to see the whole band at a glance, not just a list of the line-up while listening to a sole musician. Discoverability and serendipity flow from it.
It used to be that trackbacks did precisely that, show the context in which someone else referred to my blogposts. It is enriching my own posts to show that context underneath them. See below how that looked a long time ago, in a post on information strategies from 2005.

Three trackbacks on an old post of mine, showing context of the linking blogpost



These three posts are not in response to me, but reflections triggered by my posts and extensions of my contribution

So I’d definitely want to show that context for webmentions. What strikes me as odd now is how little control I have over how the Webmention and Semantic Linkbacks plugins actually deal with webmention data. The stuff I’d like to show is stored in my database, but I can’t through the plugins determine how that is shown.
The same is true on the flipside: my site adds microformats so others can machine read my blog, but apparently it doesn’t do it right. Yet I have no control from the mentioned plugins interfaces over how that is done, nor do I have documentation / insight into how the plugins are designed to comply with microformat specifications. So the next step is: read up on microformat specifications, and dive into the code of the plugins to see where it does what, and whether I can change that in ways that won’t be simply overwritten with the first update of WordPress or the plugins. [UPDATE: I installed a different WordPress Theme, called Sempress, as it should be better at adding the correct microformats for this site]

7 thoughts on “Wrapping My Head Around Webmentions Pt 2

  1. Yes, totally trusting the claimed url is a potential issue, and e.g. my own webmention handling code only allows it for a whitelist of trusted services like brid.gyi, where I know they intentionally pretend to be a different domain. I’m not involved with the WordPress plugins and their development, so I don’t know what rules those follow here.

    Regarding the mentions vs replies, they have to be clearly distinguishable to avoid misunderstandings (see e.g. this example from the Indieweb wiki for how it can go badly), and since it isn’t clear how important a mention is, many prefer to have them displayed as compact as possible. That said, if you prefer it differently I’m sure the plugin devs will add an option for you or tell you what to modify if you ask them for help.

    From my understanding, neither the Webmention nor the Semantic Linkback plugins are responsible for setting up microformats markup for your page, they merely add some aspects of it that are part of their responsibilities. Ideally, this is handled by the theme, and there is the microformats plugin which attempts as good as it can to inject the correct markup, but is limited in what it can do. The Indieweb chatrooms (available via IRC, Slack or a web interface) are probabably the best way to get help with that. I’m happy to help figure out what’s wrong with markup, but don’t know enough about WordPress to directly help fixing it.

    via svenknebel.de

    • Hi Sven, thanks once more. You’re right I realise, the microformats in my site have been put there by a different plugin, the microformats 2 plugin by the Indieweb WP outreach effort. Its description specifically warns it’s a best guess effort. So I’ll sift through the code of that.

Reading

  • Chris Aldrich

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.