# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
#
# Usage:
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users View list of users and latest twt date.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt View all twts.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri View all mentions for uri.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash View all twts for a conversation subject.
#
# Options:
# uri Filter to show a specific users twts.
# offset Start index for quey.
# limit Count of items to return (going back in time).
#
# twt range = 1 5
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/6f2orxq
@bender My point was that the suggested syntax for extending mentions to point to a specific message (@<nick url timestamp>) and having location based treading this way, might not break older clients, since they might just igonore the last value within the brackets.
@bender My point was that the suggested syntax for extending mentions to point to a specific message (@<nick url timestamp>) and having location based treading this way, might not break older clients, since they might just igonore the last value within the brackets.
@bender My point was that the suggested syntax for extending mentions to point to a specific message (@<nick url timestamp>) and having location based treading this way, might not break older clients, since they might just igonore the last value within the brackets.
@bender My point was that the suggested syntax for extending mentions to point to a specific message (@<nick url timestamp>) and having location based treading this way, might not break older clients, since they might just igonore the last value within the brackets.
@sorenpeter Unfortunately it does break all clients, because the original spec stated:
> Mentions are embedded within the text in either @ or @ format