i still want a tux plushie ngl. i’m gonna draft my sister (she can sew) into making me one

@prologic@twtxt.net Can you please draft up a specification for that proposed change with all the details? Such as which date do you actually refer to? Is it now() or the message’s creation timestamp? I reckon the latter is the case, but it’s undefined right now. Then we can discuss and potentially tweak the proposal.

Also, I see what you did there in regards to the reply model change poll. ]:->

First draft of yarnd 0.16 release notes. 📝 – Probably needs some tweaking and fixing, but it’s sounding alright so far 👌 #yarnd

@bender@twtxt.net (Feels a bit like his “edit” function could be implemented as “delete and re-draft”, but I’m only guessing here.)

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.

Hi everyone,
I’ve drafted a Request for Comments (RFC) to improve how threads work in twtxt:
https://git.mills.io/yarnsocial/twtxt.dev/issues/18

I’d love your feedback! Please share your thoughts on anything that could be better explained, check if the proposed dates work for everyone, and I invite you to join the discussion…

There’s a reason I avoid speaking my mind on the internet like the plague. The same reason I’d set up a {B,Ph,Gem}log months ago but never got myself to publish any of the drafts in any of them.

I made a draft of an “encrypted public messenger”, which was basically a Feed for an address derivate from the public ket, let’s say ‘abcd..eaea’

Anyone could check, “are there any messages for my address?” and you get a whole list of timestamps and encrypted stuff.

Inside the encrypted message is a signature from the sender. That way you ‘could’ block spam.

Only the owner of the private key could see who sent what, and so…

And even with that my concussion was that users expectations for a private IM might be far away from my experiment.

I’ve started a draft over at: https://git.mills.io/yarnsocial/twtxt.dev/src/branch/main/exts/webfinger.md

More thoughts about changes to twtxt (as if we haven’t had enough thoughts):

1. There are lots of great ideas here! Is there a benefit to putting them all into one document? Seems to me this could more easily be a bunch of separate efforts that can progress at their own pace:
   

1a. Better and longer hashes.

1b. New possibly-controversial ideas like edit: and delete: and location-based references as an alternative to hashes.

1c. Best practices, e.g. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

1d. Stuff already described at dev.twtxt.net that doesn’t need any changes.

1. We won’t know what will and won’t work until we try them. So I’m inclined to think of this as a bunch of draft ideas. Maybe later when we’ve seen it play out it could make sense to define a group of recommended twtxt extensions and give them a name.

2. Another reason for 1 (above) is: I like the current situation where all you need to get started is these two short and simple documents:
   https://twtxt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user/twtxtfile.html
   https://twtxt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user/discoverability.html
   and everything else is an extension for anyone interested. (Deprecating non-UTC times seems reasonable to me, though.) Having a big long “twtxt v2” document seems less inviting to people looking for something simple. (@prologic@twtxt.net you mentioned an anonymous comment “you’ve ruined twtxt” and while I don’t completely agree with that commenter’s sentiment, I would feel like twtxt had lost something if it moved away from having a super-simple core.)

3. All that being said, these are just my opinions, and I’m not doing the work of writing software or drafting proposals. Maybe I will at some point, but until then, if you’re actually implementing things, you’re in charge of what you decide to make, and I’m grateful for the work.

@prologic@twtxt.net Thanks for writing that up!

I hope it can remain a living document (or sequence of draft revisions) for a good long time while we figure out how this stuff works in practice.

I am not sure how I feel about all this being done at once, vs. letting conventions arise.

For example, even today I could reply to twt abc1234 with “(#abc1234) Edit: …” and I think all you humans would understand it as an edit to (#abc1234). Maybe eventually it would become a common enough convention that clients would start to support it explicitly.

Similarly we could just start using 11-digit hashes. We should iron out whether it’s sha256 or whatever but there’s no need get all the other stuff right at the same time.

I have similar thoughts about how some users could try out location-based replies in a backward-compatible way (append the replyto: stuff after the legacy (#hash) style).

However I recognize that I’m not the one implementing this stuff, and it’s less work to just have everything determined up front.

Misc comments (I haven’t read the whole thing):

• Did you mean to make hashes hexadecimal? You lose 11 bits that way compared to base32. I’d suggest gaining 11 bits with base64 instead.

• “Clients MUST preserve the original hash” — do you mean they MUST preserve the original twt?

• Thanks for phrasing the bit about deletions so neutrally.

• I don’t like the MUST in “Clients MUST follow the chain of reply-to references…”. If someone writes a client as a 40-line shell script that requires the user to piece together the threading themselves, IMO we shouldn’t declare the client non-conforming just because they didn’t get to all the bells and whistles.

• Similarly I don’t like the MUST for user agents. For one thing, you might want to fetch a feed without revealing your identty. Also, it raises the bar for a minimal implementation (I’m again thinking again of the 40-line shell script).

• For “who follows” lists: why must the long, random tokens be only valid for a limited time? Do you have a scenario in mind where they could leak?

• Why can’t feeds be served over HTTP/1.0? Again, thinking about simple software. I recently tried implementing HTTP/1.1 and it wasn’t too bad, but 1.0 would have been slightly simpler.

• Why get into the nitty-gritty about caching headers? This seems like generic advice for HTTP servers and clients.

• I’m a little sad about other protocols being not recommended.

• I don’t know how I feel about including markdown. I don’t mind too much that yarn users emit twts full of markdown, but I’m more of a plain text kind of person. Also it adds to the length. I wonder if putting a separate document would make more sense; that would also help with the length.

I just “published” a #draft on my blog about “How I’ve implemented #webmentions for twtxt” (http://darch.dk/mentions-twtxt), so I wanted to know from you guys if you see yourself doing a similar thing with yarnd @prologic@twtxt.net or others with custom setups?

if your eag profile doesn’t say ‘neartermism’, you’ll automatically be drafted into the deepmind potential hires mailing list

My website is very Piling. look at the todo list: https://niplav.github.io/todo.html! i can’t tell you much about how it will look like in a year, but i can tell you that it won’t shrink. it’s piling. everything is piling up, forgotten drafts, half-finished experiments, buggy code—fixed over time, sure, but much more slowly than the errors come rolling in. it’s an eternal struggle.

phew. took me long enough, but I finally got an initial draft for using the monome grid in C directly via libmonome: !grid_tutorial

@prologic@twtxt.net looking through the drafts it looks like it actually used SRV records as recently as 2018 😵

@xuu@txt.sour.is Not too happy with WKD’s use of CNAME over SRV for discovery of openpgpkey.. That breaks using SNI pretty quick. I suppose it was setup as a temporary workaround anyhow in the RFC..