{ "@context": "...",
  "id": "https://...",
  "content": "This is the content of this object",
  "description": "<p>Here's some <b>bold</b> text</p>",
  "descriptionMediaType": "text/html",
  "descriptionSource": {
    "content": "Here's some **bold** text",
    "mediaType": "text/markdown"
  }
}

{ "@context": "...",
  "id": "https://...",
  "content": "This is the content of this object",
  "description": {
    "content": "<p>Here's some <b>bold</b> text</p>",
    "mediaType": "text/html",
    "source": {
      "content": "Here's some **bold** text",
      "mediaType": "text/markdown"
    }
  }
}

A standard thing in ActivityPub is that there's `content` containing rendered rich text such as HTML, and `source` contains the source material and can be used for editing the content. The AS2 vocabulary spec describes the `content` property like this: > The content or textual representation of the Object encoded as a JSON string What if an object has some rich text field but that field is *not* the "content" or "textual representation" of the object? And what if there are multiple rich text fields? For these cases, I want to ask: - Which property to use for the HTML? - Which property to use for the Markdown source? - Which properties to use for media types? I want to give specific examples and be very precise about what I'm asking. # Question 1: Placing the source field Imagine there's a property `description` and we want it to contain HTML, and we also want to provide Markdown source. One hypothetical very scary way to do this is to define a dedicated properties for the source and media type: ```json { "@context": "...", "id": "https://...", "content": "This is the content of this object", "description": "<p>Here's some <b>bold</b> text</p>", "descriptionMediaType": "text/html", "descriptionSource": { "content": "Here's some **bold** text", "mediaType": "text/markdown" } } ``` Another way, perhaps a nicer way is to do something like this: ```json { "@context": "...", "id": "https://...", "content": "This is the content of this object", "description": { "content": "<p>Here's some <b>bold</b> text</p>", "mediaType": "text/html", "source": { "content": "Here's some **bold** text", "mediaType": "text/markdown" } } } ``` Does the 2nd way look reasonable? Shall we do it like this? The downside is that `description` doesn't have an obvious type as its range. AP doesn't define a range type for the `source` property. Are we ok with that? Or do we want do define/propose a type for this? We could call it `Content` or something. Idk. # Question 2: How much to use `content` For a `Note`, the `content` is the true actual essence of the note. When you talk about writing a note, the stuff you write is what's in the `content`. But imagine something like `Banana`, and we want to specify a description of this banana, e.g. "A sweet delicious yellow ripe organic banana". Do we put this text under the `content` property? I'm asking because this text is clearly *not* the content of the banana. The content is a physical object you're about to eat, in the physical world. Another example, imagine a Merge Request submitted against one of your Git repos. The Merge Request probably has a title, and a longer description, and then there's the actual commits that the submitter made. Do we put the Merge Request's description in `content`? I'm asking because the actual content, essence, of the merge request is the commits, not the description. So, I'm wondering: Should we use `content` when there's a single description field for an object, even if it's not the actual content and just a textual description/representation, or should we use other properties, and reserve `content` for use with the actual essence of the object (when the essence is textual; since the range of `content` is `xsd:string` so it can't be e.g. a list of commits)? [Feneas forum thread](https://talk.feneas.org/t/editable-rich-text-fields/185)