Hi! For anyone following the Request for Comments on an improved syntax for replies and threads, I’ve made a comparative spreadsheet with the 4 proposals so far. It shows a syntax example, and top pros and cons I’ve found:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KOUqJ2rNl_jZ4KBVTsR-4QmG1zAdKNo7QXJS1uogQVo/edit?gid=0#gid=0
Feel free to propose another collaborative platform (for those without a G account), and also share your comments and analysis in the spreadsheet or in Gitea.
@eapl.me@eapl.me Good job! I have added these comments:
I have applied your comments, and I tried to add you as an editor but couldn’t find your email address. Please request editing access if you wish.
Also, could you elaborate on how you envision migrating with a script? You mean that the client of the file owner could massively update URLs in old twts ?
also I’ve made a draft of a voting page to receive preferences on each proposal
https://eapl.me/rfc0001/
Help me to play with it a bit and report any vulnerability or bug. Also any idea is welcome.
@eapl.me@eapl.me Thank you for this!
I cast a test vote. Did it work? :-)
yeah, it worked, thanks! :)
@eapl.me@eapl.me Cool!
Proposal 3 (https://git.mills.io/yarnsocial/twtxt.dev/issues/18#issuecomment-19215) has the “advantage”, that you do not have to “mention” the original author if the thread slightly diverges. It seems to be a thing here that conversations are typically very flat instead of trees. Hence, and despite being a tree hugger, I voted for 3 being my favorite one, then 2, 1 and finally 4.
All proposals still need more work to clarify the details and edge cases in my opinion before they can be implemented.
(I didn’t submit a proposal of my own, because it would basically just be a duplicate of another one. 😅)