@prologic@twtxt.net (#opev6mq) I see reasons for allowing absolute URIs, and see no reason not to.

I suppose I should condense this thread into a write-up proposing the change, explaining why, and proposing client behaviors (“how to deal with a prev pointing to an absolute URI”). But that takes time, and I don’t know when will I reserve some to sit down and actually do the proposal :-)


#k2mxfnq

@prologic@twtxt.net (#vp2aicq) It’s a hint: it nudges my feed’s followers “hey read this twtxt in another feed”. We can probably find a better way to implement these hints or nudges, but if there’s nothing in place, I wonder if we won’t end up with a bunch of twtxts just saying “agree” or “+1”…


#5efnnyq

@prologic@twtxt.net (#nsmsvfq) Apparently, nitter “Uses Twitter’s unofficial API (no rate limits or developer account required)”, so I suppose you could run your own instance and not depend on a 3rd party, or even just see on nitter’s code (it’s free software!) thev relevant parts of that ‘unofficial API’…


#ewa7j4q

@prologic@twtxt.net (#opev6mq) Spoofing is always possible, and always a concern (don’t we “deal” with it already for the url field?).

For the side-question, the feature is nice but depends on availability, and trust, I’m more interested in adversarial interoperability. What if I’m moving from a pod because I dislike their new policies, or new terms of service, their monetization model, etc.? And what guarantees do we have that every pod (or even yarn implementation) will have the redirect option available to its users?


#ahdl23q