(#weadxga) @sorenpeter@darch.dk
(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)
I think I like this a lot. đ¤
The problem with using hashes always was that theyâre âone-directionalâ: You can construct a hash from URL + timestamp + twt, but you cannot do the inverse. When I see #weadxga
, I have no idea what that could possibly refer to.
But of course something like (replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)
has all the information you need. This could simplify twt/feed discovery quite a bit, couldnât it? đ¤ That thing that I just implemented â jenny asking some Yarn pod for some twt hash â would not be necessary anymore. Clients could easily and automatically fetch complete threads instead of requiring the user to follow all relevant feeds.
Only using the timestamp to identify a twt also solves the edit problem.
It even is better for non-Yarn clients, because you now donât have to read, understand, and implement a âtwt hash specificationâ before you can reply to someone.
The only problem, really, is that (replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)
is so long. Clients would have to try harder to hide this. đ
#wnq5qva
(#wnq5qva) @movq@www.uninformativ.de Whatâs you definition of âcomplete threadâ? ;-) There might be feeds participating in the conversation that you have no idea of.
But yes, this has a nice discoverability bonus. And even simpler than a hash, thatâs right.
#3bzqa5a