# 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 14
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/s4s2r2a
@lyse
> So, what would happen if there is no original message anymore in the feed and you encounter an "edit" subject?
We’d *have to* classify this as invalid and discard it. If the referenced twt is not present in the feed (or any archived feed), then it might potentially belong to some other feed, and feeds overwriting the contents of other feeds is pretty bad. 😅
As @prologic said, clients must always check that twts referenced by edit and delete are actually present in that very feed.
@lyse
> So, what would happen if there is no original message anymore in the feed and you encounter an "edit" subject?
We’d *have to* classify this as invalid and discard it. If the referenced twt is not present in the feed (or any archived feed), then it might potentially belong to some other feed, and feeds overwriting the contents of other feeds is pretty bad. 😅
As @prologic said, clients must always check that twts referenced by edit and delete are actually present in that very feed.
@lyse
> So, what would happen if there is no original message anymore in the feed and you encounter an "edit" subject?
We’d *have to* classify this as invalid and discard it. If the referenced twt is not present in the feed (or any archived feed), then it might potentially belong to some other feed, and feeds overwriting the contents of other feeds is pretty bad. 😅
As @prologic said, clients must always check that twts referenced by edit and delete are actually present in that very feed.
@lyse
> So, what would happen if there is no original message anymore in the feed and you encounter an "edit" subject?
We’d *have to* classify this as invalid and discard it. If the referenced twt is not present in the feed (or any archived feed), then it might potentially belong to some other feed, and feeds overwriting the contents of other feeds is pretty bad. 😅
As @prologic said, clients must always check that twts referenced by edit and delete are actually present in that very feed.
@movq Not sure if I like the idea of keeping the original message around. It goes against the spirit of an edit in my mind.
If that's what we want to enforce, forget about my other message above in the thread.
@lyse I think that’s what we would *have to* enforce – otherwise we’d run into the problem you’ve outlined. 😃
@lyse I think that’s what we would *have to* enforce – otherwise we’d run into the problem you’ve outlined. 😃
@lyse I think that’s what we would *have to* enforce – otherwise we’d run into the problem you’ve outlined. 😃
@lyse I think that’s what we would *have to* enforce – otherwise we’d run into the problem you’ve outlined. 😃
@movq We could still let the client display a warning if it cannot verify it. But yeah.
@lyse @movq So a client that has the idea of a cache/archive wouldn't necessarily have to re-check that the Twt being marked as "edited" belongs to that feed or not, the client would already know that for sure. At least this is how yarnd works and I'm sure jenny can make similar assertions too.
@lyse @movq So a client that has the idea of a cache/archive wouldn't necessarily have to re-check that the Twt being marked as "edited" belongs to that feed or not, the client would already know that for sure. At least this is how yarnd works and I'm sure jenny can make similar assertions too.
But yes, at the end of the day if the edit request is invalid or cannot be verified, it should be ignored as treated as "malicious".
But yes, at the end of the day if the edit request is invalid or cannot be verified, it should be ignored as treated as "malicious".