(#ce4g4qa) I’m not advocating in either direction, btw. I haven’t made up my mind yet. 😅 Just braindumping here.

The (replyto:…) proposal is definitely more in the spirit of twtxt, I’d say. It’s much simpler, anyone can use it even with the simplest tools, no need for any client code. That is certainly a great property, if you ask me, and it’s things like that that brought me to twtxt in the first place.

I’d also say that in our tiny little community, message integrity simply doesn’t matter. Signed feeds don’t matter. I signed my feed for a while using GPG, someone else did the same, but in the end, nobody cares. The community is so tiny, there’s enough “implicit trust” or whatever you want to call it.

If twtxt/Yarn was to grow bigger, then this would become a concern again. But even Mastodon allows editing, so how much of a problem can it really be? 😅

I do have to “admit”, though, that hashes feel better. It feels good to know that we can clearly identify a certain twt. It feels more correct and stable.

Hm.

I suspect that the (replyto:…) proposal would work just as well in practice.

(#ucgvfmq) @movq@www.uninformativ.de The more I think about it, the more do I like the location-based addressing. That feels fairly in line with the spirit of twtxt, just like you stated somewhere else.

The big downside for me is that the subjects then become super long.

And if the feed relocates, we end up with broken conversation trees again. Just like nowadays. At least it’s not getting worse. :-)

Using the feed URL in there might become a little challenging for new folks, when the twt rotates away into archive feeds. But I reckon, we already have a similar situation with the hashes. So, probably not too bad.

(#ucgvfmq) @movq@www.uninformativ.de Yeah, but hashing also uses the main feed URL or whatever is written in the feed’s first url metadata field. So, it’s not a new problem, it’s exactly the same.