TNO Threading (draft):
Each origin feed numbers new threads (tno:N). Replies carry both (tno:N) and (ofeed:<origin-url>). Thread identity = (ofeed, tno).

• Roots: (tno:N) (implicit ofeed=self).
  
• Replies: (tno:N) (ofeed:<url>).
  
• Clients: increment tno locally for new threads, copy tags on reply.
  
• Subjects optional, not required.
  

…

Example:

Alice starts thread href=”https://yarn.stigatle.no/search?tag=42:”>#42:**

2025-09-25T12:00:00Z (tno:42) Launching storage design review.

Bob replies:

2025-09-25T12:05:00Z (tno:42) (ofeed:https://alice.example/twtxt.txt
) I think compaction stalls under load.

Carol replies to Bob:

2025-09-25T12:08:00Z (tno:42) (ofeed:https://alice.example/twtxt.txt
) Token bucket sounds good.

This is possibly the only other threading model I can come up with for Twtxt that I think I can get behind.

@prologic@twtxt.net That’s a completely flat threading model (you can’t reply to replies). Is that intentional?

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Yes it’s kind of terrible 😞 – Let’s not do this 🤣

@prologic@twtxt.net I think a counter in the client is not a good choice given the decentralized nature of twtxt, especially if someone use multiple cients together.

After thinking about it for a while I got to two solutions:

Proposal 1: Thread syntax (using subject)

Each post have an implicit and an optional explicit root reference:

• Implicit (no action needed, all data required are already there)

  • URL + timestamp
    

• Explicit (subject required)

  • Identity (client generated)
    
  • External reference
    
  • Random value
    

We then add include a “root” subject in each post for generating explicit theads:

1. `[ROOT_ID] (REPLY_ID)`: simpler with no need of prefixes
2. `(root:ROOT_ID) (reply:REPLY_ID)`: more complex but could allow expansions
	- `(rt:ROOT_ID) (re:REPLY_ID)`: same but with a compact version
	- `($ROOT_ID) (>REPLY_ID)`: same but with a single characters

Each post can have both references, like the current hash approach the reference can be treated as a simple string and don’t have a real meaning.

Using a custom reference this way allows a client to decide how to generate them:

• Identity: can be a content hash or signature or anything else, without enforcing how it is generated we can upgrade the algorithm/length freely
  
• External references: can be provided from another system (Eg. 7e073bd345, yarnsocial/yarn latest commit)
  
• Random value: like a UUID (Eg. 9a0c34ed-d11e-447e-9257-0a0f57ef6e07)
  

Proposal 2: Threaded mentions (featuring zvava)

Inspired by @zvava@twtxt.net’s solution it could be simplified into: #<nick url#timestamp> or #<url#timestamp>

It can be shown like a mentions or hidden like a subject.

If we’re using thinking of using a counter in the client, I think there’s no point in avoiding the timestamp anymore.