↳ In-reply-to » The tag URI scheme looks interesting. I like that it human read- and writable. And since we already got the timestamp in the twtxt.txt it would be somewhat trivial to parse. But there are still the issue with what the name/id should be... Maybe it doesn't have to bee that stick?

@sorenpeter@darch.dk That could work. There are a few things that jump out at me.

1. Nicknames on twtxt have historically been set on the client end. The nick metadata field is an optional add-on to the spec. I’m not sure it should be in the reply tag because it could differ between clients.
   
2. URLs are safer to use, and we use them in the hash currently, but they can still change and we’re back to square 1. Feeds ought to have some kind of persistent identifier for this reason, which is why we’ve been discussing cryptographic keys and tag URIs in the first place.
   
3. The current twt hash spec mandates collapsing the timestamp to seconds precision. If those rules are kept, two posts made within the same second will not be separate when someone replies.