This scheme also only support threading off a specific Twt of someone’s feed. What if you’re not replying to anyone in particular?
@prologic@twtxt.net you will always be replying to OP - that is what the twthash is a shorthand for, it it not?!
@sorenpeter@darch.dk not really you’re really forming a cryptographic chain of twts, that are cryptographically provable by anyone, at least in one direction ). It’s called content addressing. Your propose scheme while simple doesn’t do this.
@movq@www.uninformativ.de I think if Git can solve the same problem of branching, forking, patching and merging, so can we 🤣
Ultimately I think we just need to agree on a way to represent an edit and the previous version of a Twt in a way that makes sense. I like one of the ideas presented earlier in some other thread (god only knows which one haha 😝); That is: <timestamp> (#hash;#originalHash) <content> For example.
It would mean clients that support the TwtSubject and TwtHash extension, should also indicate the previous version of their Twt when editing.
@movq@www.uninformativ.de Well at this point I think I’m going to try to combine @lyse@lyse.isobeef.org’s idea for supporting moving your feed to a different URL and this idea for supporting editing. I’ll spec it up and see if what we think from there…