@alexonit@twtxt.alessandrocutolo.it prologic has me sold on the idea of hashv2 being served alongside a text fragment, eg. (#abcdefghijkl https://example.com/tw.txt#:~:text=2025-10-01T10:28:00Z), because it can be simply hacked in to clients currently on hashv1 and provides an off-ramp to location-based addressing (though i still think the format should be changed to smth like #<abc... http://example.com/...> so it’s cleaner once we finally drop hashes)

is the first url metadata field unequivocally treated as the canon feed url when calculating hashes, or are they ignored if they’re not at least proper urls? do you just tolerate it if they’re impersonating someone else’s feed, or pointing to something that isn’t even a feed at all?

and if the first url metadata field changes, should it be logged with a time so we can still calculate hashes for old posts? or should it never be updated? (in the case of a pod, where the end user has no choice in how such events are treated) or do we redirect all the old hashes to the new ones (probably this, since it would be helpful for edits too)

im just a poor frontend developer qwq

plus, if hashv2 was implemented in combination with text fragments the way you proposed that would solve both scripting and human readability woes!!

…though, the presence of the text fragments then makes reversing the replied-to twt (and therefore its hash) trivial, which could allow clients to tolerate the omission of the hash — and while it would be ‘non-standard’ this would be the best of both worlds; potential to tolerate (or pave a glacial path toward? :o) human writable replies whilst keeping a unique id for twts that is universal across all pods

@prologic@twtxt.net to clarify: i meant the ability to parse feeds using unix command line utilities, as a principal of twtxtv1’s design. im not sure how feasible it is to build a simple feed reader out of common scripting utilities when hashing is in play, and;

i concede, it does make a lot of sense to fix up the hashing spec rather than completely supplant it at this point, just thinking about what the rewrite would be like is dreadful in and of itself x.x

Image

@prologic@twtxt.net the simplest thing to do is to completely forgo hashing anything because we are communicating using plain text files right now :3 while i agree hashes are incredibly helpful in the backend im not sure it has a place outside of it, it basically eliminates two core design principals of twtxt (human readability and integrating well with unix command line utilities) and makes new clients more difficult to build than it should be

@bender@twtxt.net https://andros.dev/texudus.txt, its url doesn’t correspond to the feed either

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org @movq@www.uninformativ.de bbycll’s nickname regex is /^([-_\p{N}\p{L}])+$/iu because i don’t like how english-centric only allowing ascii letters/numbers is though this only applies to local users as of now, currently all nicknames are tolerated when parsing remote feeds and i just do mentions how yarn does (just the feed url)

in the wild, i’ve noticed a texedus feed with spaces in the nick (where its spec explicitly disallows whitespace in the nick) and feeds with other symbols in the nick too. honestly, i think we should just tolerate arbitrary nicknames for sake of user expression (while stripping or converting unreasonable characters) and just leave them out of mentions

is there consensus on what characters should(n’t) be allowed in nicks? i remember reading somewhere whitespace should not be allowed, but i don’t see it in the spec on twtxt.dev — in fact, are there any other resources on twtxt extensions outside of twtxt.dev?

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org i dont mind if the hash is not backward compatible but im not sure if this is the right way to proceed because the added complexity dealing with two hash versions isnt justified

regular end users wont care to understand how twt hashes are formed, they just want to use twtxt! so i guess i could work in protecting users from themselves by disallowing post edits on old posts or posts with replies, but i’m not fond of this either really. if they want to break a thread, they can just delete the post (though i’ve noticed yarn handling post deletes dubiously…)

on activitypub i do genuinely find myself looking through several month or even year old posts sometimes and deciding to edit/reword them a little to be slightly less confusing, this should be trivial to handle on twtxt which is an infinitely simpler specification

@bender@twtxt.net @thecanine@twtxt.net well now this has me thinking abt the feasibility of making an android twtxt app for pods, the actual apis of pods would have to be standardized (or the fucked up way that activitypub does it, where the “mastodon api” is the defacto client api (does yarn even have an api reference?)) or the client is just simply..a client..but editing feeds via PUT, PATCH, DELETE etc. is standardized!…? (not to mention i dont even know where to begin making an android app lmao)

mobile navigation bar :3

Image

wait why are so many of my post hashes not generating correctly ;w;

edit: i read the spec wrong :3 only +/-00:00 is stripped, not the entire timezone offset >.<

@prologic@twtxt.net im unsure how i feel about the hash v2 proposal, given it is completely backward incompatible with hash v1 it doesn’t really solve any of the problems with it. it only delays collisions, and still fragments threads on post edits

i skimmed through discussions under other the proposals — i agree humans are very bad at keeping the integrity of the web in tact, but hashes in done in this way make it impossible even for systems to rebuild threads if any post edits have occurred prior to their deployment

wait….so i’m like nearly done? it just works? and it’s fast? this feels like the end of the first all-nighter i pulled where i just got post creation done, unaware of the three weeks that would follow — like looking at the roadmap i’m definitely not done but bbycll is like actually kind of usable now o.o

ok so i have found a genuine twt hash collision. what do i do.

internally, bbycll relies on a post lookup table with post hashes as keys, this is really fast but i knew i’d inevitably run into this issue (just not so soon) so now i have to either:
  1) pick the newer post over the other
  2) break from specification and not lowercase hashes
  3) secretly associate canonical urls or additional entropy with post hashes in the backend without a sizeable performance impact somehow

Image

we are now parsing and recursively fetching remote feeds somewhat successfully, gotta work on the media proxy and markdown way more, so so many fucky edgecases….my friend’s feed with like four posts parsed correctly so i tried this account’s feed and well now im not going to bed on time

Video

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org retwts are a discovery feature! on federated platforms with no algorithm where you only ever see posts from accounts you explicitly follow, the element of “hey look at this!” helps users to find other accounts they might like organically

i agree quoting and replying forum-style is generally a much better way of doing things even though im a heathen and i revel in the dark patterns inspired by quote posts but when you have nothing to add and you just want to share a twt with your followers it’d be good to have a standardized way of linking to twt

at first i dismissed the idea of likes on twtxt as not sensible…like at all — then i considered they could just be published in a metadata field (though that field could get really unruly after a while)

retwts are plausible, as “RE: https://example.com/twtxt.txt#abcdefg”, the hash could even be the original timestamp from the feed to make it human readable/writable, though im extremely wary of clogging up timelines

i thought quote twts could be done extremely sensibly, by interpreting a mention+hash at the end of the twt differently to when placed at the beginning — but the twt subject extension requires it be at the beginning, so the clean fallback to a normal reply i originally imagined is out of the question — it could still be possible (reusing the retwt format, just like twitter!) but i’m not convinced it’s worth it at that point

is any of this in the spirit of twtxt? no, not in the slightest, lmao

search page, bookmarks page, improved thread view (that i will probably improve further), as well as a logo and a whole ui redesign. it is truly all coming together…were i to mark any items off the roadmap :p

Video

is there someone (ideally not in the opposite timezone to me) who’d be willing to let me bother them with technical questions abt twtxtv2 and/or yarn’s inner workings? :3