# 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 9
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/tzctugq
@prologic We can't agree on this idea because that makes things even more complicated than it already is today. The beauty of twtxt is, you put one file on your server, done. One. Not five million. Granted, there might be archive feeds, so it might be already a bit more, but still faaaaaaar less than one file per message.
Also, you would need to host not your own hash files, but everybody else's as well you follow. Otherwise, what is that supposed to achieve? If people are already following my feed, they know what hashes I have, so this is to no use of them (unless they want to look up a message from an archive feed and don't process them). But the far more common scenario is that an unknown hash originates from a feed that they have not subscribed to.
Additionally, yarnd's URL schema would then also break, because https://twtxt.net/twt/<hash> now becomes https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/<hash>, https://twtxt.net/user/bender/<hash> and so on. To me, that looks like you would only get hashes if they belonged to this particular user. Of course, you could define rules that if there is a /user/ part in the path, then use a different URL, but this complicates things even more.
Sorry, I don't like that idea.
@lyse I also think we need to remove ourselves a bit from the "Twtxt" format as it was originally designed by Buckket.
> The beauty of twtxt is, you put one file on your server, done. One.
I'm not talking (_nor ever was here_) about that. We should be allowed to and encourage dot evolve its usage and our own.
It would be far better as a community to focus on the utility of our tools, services, protocols, formats and specifications as well as our own clients and usages thereof rather than this "idealised" design from (c) 2016.
If you strongly disagree with this, then I think I'll just honestly step away from all of this as the back 'n forth on this whole "beaty" and "simplify" argument is honestly wearing me down 😢
If we don't keep insisting on simplify and "The beauty of twtxt is, you put one file on your server, done. One.", then people should just use ActivityPub-based software like Mastodon, PixelFed, etc. which are getting a lot of attention and uses migrating to the fediverse from meta/x here in Denmark over the last couple of months.
If we don't keep insisting on simplify and "The beauty of twtxt is, you put one file on your server, done. One.", then people should just use ActivityPub-based software like Mastodon, PixelFed, etc. which are getting a lot of attention and uses migrating to the fediverse from meta/x here in Denmark over the last couple of months.
If we don't keep insisting on simplify and "The beauty of twtxt is, you put one file on your server, done. One.", then people should just use ActivityPub-based software like Mastodon, PixelFed, etc. which are getting a lot of attention and uses migrating to the fediverse from meta/x here in Denmark over the last couple of months.
If we don't keep insisting on simplify and "The beauty of twtxt is, you put one file on your server, done. One.", then people should just use ActivityPub-based software like Mastodon, PixelFed, etc. which are getting a lot of attention and uses migrating to the fediverse from meta/x here in Denmark over the last couple of months.
@lyse deeply honored to be used as an example, when illustrating things that will break! :-D <3
@prologic oops, I'm sorry to see disagreement leading to draining emotions.
It remind me a bit of the Conclave movie where every part wanted to defend their vision and there is only a winner. If one wins the other loses. Like the political side of many leaders and volunteers representing a broad community. I don't think that's the case here. Most of us (in not all) should 'win'.
I can only add that isn't nice to listen that 'my idea and effort' is not what the rest of the people expect. I personally have a kind of issue with public rejection, but I also like to argue, discuss and even fight a bit. "A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials," they say.
This exercise and belonging to this community also brings me good feelings of smart people trying to solve a human and technical problem, which is insanely difficult to get 'right'.
I genuinely hope we can understand each other, and even with our different and respectful thoughts on the same thing, we might reach an agreement on what's the best for most people.
Good vibes to everyone!