@movq@www.uninformativ.de It sounds complicated. After reading it only twice, I haven’t gotten it. :-D

Yes, I’m all for dedicated message IDs. That would be a whole new format then. But I would be fine with it. The only thing is that all our clients have to be touched. At the moment, I do not worry about spoofing (however, I definitely should).

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org @prologic@twtxt.net Sorry, I have hardly slept last night. 😅 I probably didn’t chose the best words to describe this. 🥴

Yes, I’m all for dedicated message IDs. That would be a whole new format then. But I would be fine with it.

Honestly, me too. When Yarn originally showed up, I was concerned that it would extend twtxt in dramatically incompatible ways or, worse, change it in a way so that you needed server software. 😅 The latter would have ruined it for me. A major reason why I still use twtxt/Yarn is that it’s still just a file you put somewhere. If there was the need to run a daemon, I’d give up and just use some ActivityPub thingy instead.

What I did not expect, however, was that the original twtxt itself would just … die. There has been no development in the original software anymore and virtually all the original feeds are dead. Some feeds are left, but they’re just used as an alternative to Atom/RSS for some blogs. I don’t know what happened behind the scenes that killed off twtxt (I have a few guesses, though), but the sad truth is that it’s gone.

So, yeah, maybe this gives us the freedom now to break with the original twtxt spec (if needed) and come up with a format that fixes the issues we’re seeing.

(Oh god. Are we re-inventing Usenet then? Again? 😂)

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Care to share your thoughts here?

I don’t know what happened behind the scenes that killed off twtxt (I have a few guesses, though), but the sad truth is that it’s gone.