Searching We.Love.Privacy.Club

Twts matching #advice
Sort by: Newest, Oldest, Most Relevant
In-reply-to » (#6zhwv7a) I correct in public, and congratulate the same. I expect similarly. I am all heart! ā˜ŗļø

@prologic@twtxt.net whichever works for you. Just about everyone is offering ā€œgreatā€ advice these days; ā€œancient wisdomā€. Many trying to inspire others. You know what? You be you, yo do you. šŸ˜…

⤋ Read More

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org There’s a reason it’s called ā€œ(n)cursesā€. šŸ˜ The only advice I can give is to never fiddle with reassigning control sequences and $TERM variables. Leave $TERM at whatever value the terminal itself sets and use an appropriate terminfo file for it. If there are programs misbehaving, they probably blindly assume XTerm and should be fixed (or have XTerm as a hard requirement). If you try to fix this on your end, it’ll likely just break other programs. 🄓

⤋ Read More

@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 ā€œ(#abc1234) Edit: ā€¦ā€ 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.

  • ā€œClients MUST preserve the original hashā€ — 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 ā€œClients MUST follow the chain of reply-to referencesā€¦ā€. 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 ā€œwho followsā€ 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.

⤋ Read More