# 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 7
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/lwzkhea
@movq Another idea: just hash the feed url and time, without the message content. And don't twt more than once per second.
Maybe you could even just use the time, and rely on -mentions to disambiguate. Not sure how that would work out.
Though I kind of like the idea of twts being immutable. At least, it's clear which version of a twt you're replying to (assuming nobody is engineering hash collisions).
@falsifian If the timestamp included a nanosecond part (which is *not* a valid twtxt feed at the moment, because it mandates RFC3339 timestamps and those only permit one subsecond digit), this could solve the editing problem with little effort. 🤔
Btw, @prologic, in my experience, people editing their twts is a much more common thing than people changing the URL of their feed. 😅 It breaks threading all the time.
@falsifian If the timestamp included a nanosecond part (which is *not* a valid twtxt feed at the moment, because it mandates RFC3339 timestamps and those only permit one subsecond digit), this could solve the editing problem with little effort. 🤔
Btw, @prologic, in my experience, people editing their twts is a much more common thing than people changing the URL of their feed. 😅 It breaks threading all the time.
@falsifian If the timestamp included a nanosecond part (which is *not* a valid twtxt feed at the moment, because it mandates RFC3339 timestamps and those only permit one subsecond digit), this could solve the editing problem with little effort. 🤔
Btw, @prologic, in my experience, people editing their twts is a much more common thing than people changing the URL of their feed. 😅 It breaks threading all the time.
@falsifian If the timestamp included a nanosecond part (which is *not* a valid twtxt feed at the moment, because it mandates RFC3339 timestamps and those only permit one subsecond digit), this could solve the editing problem with little effort. 🤔
Btw, @prologic, in my experience, people editing their twts is a much more common thing than people changing the URL of their feed. 😅 It breaks threading all the time.