yep, my point is that the txt part is redundant for twtxt

Also a .txt file could be in any format, for example those plans from John Carmak are stored now as .txt -> https://github.com/ESWAT/john-carmack-plan-archive/blob/master/by_day/johnc_plan_19960218.txt
Although being named .plan was expected for them to work, if I recall correctly -> http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/P/plan-file.html

@eapl@eapl.mx if your point is to state that the extension is redundant, why “twt.txt”, and not “twtxt”?

I was thinking of ‘tw.txt’ to avoid a double T issue… Anyway I’d say the extension and MIME type are important to know what a file (could) contain
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/MIME_types/Common_types

Reading the original spec, I understand why it should be a .txt file instead of, let’s say twtxt or anything else. In any case it could be nick.twtxt to support multiple users in the same directory.

What is curious to me was the decision at that moment of twtxt [dot] txt. You have the text part twice 🤔. Like mydb.db or eapl_todo.todo. Nothing really transcendental, just thinking out loud.
https://twtxt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user/configuration.html

@eapl@eapl.mx I agree with you that the obviously-correct filename is tw.txt. That’s what mine’s always been.