This scheme also only support threading off a specific Twt of someone’s feed. What if you’re not replying to anyone in particular?

@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.

@prologic@twtxt.net

Your propose scheme while simple doesn’t do this.

It doesn’t do that because it’s not taking the content of a twt into account (only its timestamp). Okay. But the mere fact that we’re talking about “how to solve the edit problem” stems from using content addressing – so maybe content addressing isn’t the best thing to use here? 🤔

@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.

@prologic@twtxt.net Yeah, that thing with (#hash;#originalHash) would also work.

Maybe I’m being a bit too purist/minimalistic here. As I said before (in one of the 1372739 posts on this topic – or maybe I didn’t even send that twt, I don’t remember 😅), I never really liked hashes to begin with. They aren’t super hard to implement but they are kind of against the beauty of the original twtxt – because you need special client support for them. It’s not something that you could write manually in your twtxt.txt file. With @sorenpeter@darch.dk’s proposal, though, that would be possible.

I don’t know … maybe it’s just me. 🥴

I’m also being a bit selfish, to be honest: Implementing (#hash;#originalHash) in jenny for editing your own feed would not be a no-brainer. (Editing is already kind of unsupported, actually.) It wouldn’t be a problem to implement it for fetching other people’s feeds, though.

@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…