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.
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…