This scheme also only support threading off a specific Twt of someoneās feed. What if youāre not replying to anyone in particular?
@sorenpeter@darch.dk not really youāre really forming a cryptographic chain of twts, that are cryptographically provable by anyone, at least in one direction ). Itās called content addressing. Your propose scheme while simple doesnāt do this.
Your propose scheme while simple doesnāt do this.
It doesnāt do that because itās not taking the content of a twt into account (only its timestamp). Okay. But the mere fact that weāre talking about āhow to solve the edit problemā stems from using content addressing ā so maybe content addressing isnāt the best thing to use here? š¤
@movq@www.uninformativ.de I think if Git can solve the same problem of branching, forking, patching and merging, so can we š¤£
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 š); 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 Iām being a bit too purist/minimalistic here. As I said before (in one of the 1372739 posts on this topic ā or maybe I didnāt even send that twt, I donāt remember š
), I never really liked hashes to begin with. They arenāt super hard to implement but they are kind of against the beauty of the original twtxt ā because you need special client support for them. Itās not something that you could write manually in your twtxt.txt
file. With @sorenpeter@darch.dkās proposal, though, that would be possible.
I donāt know ā¦ maybe itās just me. š„“
Iām 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 wouldnāt be a problem to implement it for fetching other peopleās feeds, though.
@movq@www.uninformativ.de Well at this point I think Iām going to try to combine @lyse@lyse.isobeef.orgās idea for supporting moving your feed to a different URL and this idea for supporting editing. Iāll spec it up and see if what we think from thereā¦