@movq@www.uninformativ.de So I obviously happen to agree with you as well. However in so saying, one of my goals was also to bring the simplicity of Twtxt to the Web and for the general ālay personā (of sorts). So I eventually found myself building yarnd
. Has it been successful, well sort of, somewhat (but that doesnāt matter, I like that itās small and niche anyway).
I agree that the goal of simplicity is a good goal to strive for, which is why Iām actually suggesting we change the Twt identifiers to be a simple SHA256 hash, something that everyone understand and has readily available tools for. I really donāt think we should be doing any of this by hand to be honest. But part of the beauty of Twt Subject and Twt Hash(es) in the first place is replying by hand is much much easier because you only have a short 7 or 11 character thing to copy/paste in your reply. Switching to something like <url> <timestamp>
with a space in it is going to become a lot harder to copy/paste, because you canāt ādouble clickā (or is it triple click for some?) to copy/paste to your clipboard/buffer now š¤£
Anyway I digressā¦ On the whole edit thing, Iām actually find if we donāt support it at all and donāt build a protocol around that. I have zero issues with dropping that as an idea. Why? Because I actually think that clients should be auto-detecting edits anyway. They already can, Iāve PoCād this myself, I think it can be done. I havenāt (yet), and one of the reasons Iāve not spent much effort in it is it isnāt something that comes up frequently anyway.
Who cares if a thread breaks every now ān again anyway?