Subject: The [tag URI scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_URI_scheme) looks interesting. I like that it human read- and writable. And since we already got the timestamp in the twtxt.txt it would be
somewhat trivial to parse. But there are still the issue with what the name/id should be... Maybe it doesn't have to bee that stick? Instead of using `tag:` as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear
what we are talking about by using `in-reply-to:` (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or `replyto:` similar to `mailto:` 1. `(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)' 2.
`(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)' 2. `(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)' I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the
twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex: `\\([\\w-]*reply[\\w-]*\\:` Is this something that would work?
Subject: The [tag URI scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_URI_scheme) looks interesting. I like that it human read- and writable. And since we already got the timestamp in the twtxt.txt it would be
somewhat trivial to parse. But there are still the issue with what the name/id should be... Maybe it doesn't have to bee that stick? Instead of using `tag:` as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear
what we are talking about by using `in-reply-to:` (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or `replyto:` similar to `mailto:` 1. `(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)` 2.
`(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)` 3. `(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)` I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the
twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex: `\\([\\w-]*reply[\\w-]*\\:` Is this something that would work?
Notice the difference? Soren edited, and broke everything.
Subject: The [tag URI scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_URI_scheme) looks interesting. I like that it human read- and writable. And since we already got the timestamp in the twtxt.txt it would be
somewhat trivial to parse. But there are still the issue with what the name/id should be... Maybe it doesn't have to bee that stick? Instead of using `tag:` as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear
what we are talking about by using `in-reply-to:` (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or `replyto:` similar to `mailto:` 1. `(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)' 2.
`(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)' 2. `(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)' I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the
twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex: `\([\w-]*reply[\w-]*\:` Is this something that would work?
Subject: The [tag URI scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_URI_scheme) looks interesting. I like that it human read- and writable. And since we already got the timestamp in the twtxt.txt it would be
somewhat trivial to parse. But there are still the issue with what the name/id should be... Maybe it doesn't have to bee that stick? Instead of using `tag:` as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear
what we are talking about by using `in-reply-to:` (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or `replyto:` similar to `mailto:` 1. `(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)` 2.
`(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)` 3. `(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)` I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the
twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex: `\([\w-]*reply[\w-]*\:` Is this something that would work?
Notice the difference? Soren edited, and broke everything.
"sorenpeter (soren)" <sorenpeter>
sorenpeter <sorenpeter>
"sorenpeter (soren)" <sorenpeter>
sorenpeter <sorenpeter>
Message-Id: <hns535a@twtxt>
X-twtxt-feed-url: https://darch.dk/twtxt.txt
In-Reply-To: <pvju5cq@twtxt>
And
Message-Id: <weadxga@twtxt>
X-twtxt-feed-url: http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt
In-Reply-To: <pvju5cq@twtxt>
Two feed URLs, one HTTPS, the other HTTP.
Message-Id: <hns535a@twtxt>
X-twtxt-feed-url: https://darch.dk/twtxt.txt
In-Reply-To: <pvju5cq@twtxt>
And
Message-Id: <weadxga@twtxt>
X-twtxt-feed-url: http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt
In-Reply-To: <pvju5cq@twtxt>
Two feed URLs, one HTTPS, the other HTTP.
I'll set up jenny and mutt on another computer and see how it goes from there.
I'll set up jenny and mutt on another computer and see how it goes from there.
I'll set up jenny and mutt on another computer and see how it goes from there.
> Also what are the change that the same _human_ will make two different posts within the same second?!
Just out of curiosity, What would happen someday if I (maybe trolling) edit my twtxt.txt-file manually and switch/switch a couple of twt timestamps, or add in 3 different twts manually with the same time stamp?
> Also what are the change that the same _human_ will make two different posts within the same second?!
Just out of curiosity, What would happen someday if I (maybe trolling) edit my twtxt.txt-file manually and switch/switch a couple of twt timestamps, or add in 3 different twts manually with the same time stamp?
> Also what are the change that the same _human_ will make two different posts within the same second?!
Just out of curiosity, What would happen someday if I (maybe trolling) edit my twtxt.txt-file manually and switch/switch a couple of twt timestamps, or add in 3 different twts manually with the same time stamp?
Eventually, twt hashes have to change (lengthen at least), no doubt about that. But I'd like to keep it equally simple.
--fetch-context thingy: It can now ask Yarn pods for twt hashes.https://www.uninformativ.de/git/jenny/commit/eefd3fa09083e2206ed0d71887d2ef2884684a71.html
This is only done as a last resort if there’s no other way to find the missing twt. Like, when there’s a twt that begins with just a hash and no user mention, there’s no way for jenny to know on which feed that twt can be found, so it’ll ask some Yarn pod in that case.
--fetch-context thingy: It can now ask Yarn pods for twt hashes.https://www.uninformativ.de/git/jenny/commit/eefd3fa09083e2206ed0d71887d2ef2884684a71.html
This is only done as a last resort if there’s no other way to find the missing twt. Like, when there’s a twt that begins with just a hash and no user mention, there’s no way for jenny to know on which feed that twt can be found, so it’ll ask some Yarn pod in that case.
--fetch-context thingy: It can now ask Yarn pods for twt hashes.https://www.uninformativ.de/git/jenny/commit/eefd3fa09083e2206ed0d71887d2ef2884684a71.html
This is only done as a last resort if there’s no other way to find the missing twt. Like, when there’s a twt that begins with just a hash and no user mention, there’s no way for jenny to know on which feed that twt can be found, so it’ll ask some Yarn pod in that case.
--fetch-context thingy: It can now ask Yarn pods for twt hashes.https://www.uninformativ.de/git/jenny/commit/eefd3fa09083e2206ed0d71887d2ef2884684a71.html
This is only done as a last resort if there’s no other way to find the missing twt. Like, when there’s a twt that begins with just a hash and no user mention, there’s no way for jenny to know on which feed that twt can be found, so it’ll ask some Yarn pod in that case.
1. Yeah I agrees that nick sound not be part of syntax. Any valid URL to a twtxt.txt-file should be enough and is more clear, so it is not confused with a email (one of the the issues with webfinger and fedivese handles)
2. I think any valid URL would work, since we are not bound to look for exact matches. Accepting both http and https as well as a gemni and gophe could all work as long as the path to the twtxt.txt is the same.
3. My idea is that you quote the timestamp as it is in the original twtxt.txt that you are referring to, so you can do it by simply copy/pasting. Also what are the change that the same _human_ will make two different posts within the same second?!
Regarding the whole cryptographic keys for identity, to me it seems like an unnecessary layer of complexity. If you move to a new house or city you tell people that you moved - you can do the same in a twtxt.txt. Just post something like "I move to this new URL, please follow me there!" I did that with my feeds at least twice, and you guys still seem to read my posts:)
1. Yeah I agrees that nick sound not be part of syntax. Any valid URL to a twtxt.txt-file should be enough and is more clear, so it is not confused with a email (one of the the issues with webfinger and fedivese handles)
2. I think any valid URL would work, since we are not bound to look for exact matches. Accepting both http and https as well as a gemni and gophe could all work as long as the path to the twtxt.txt is the same.
3. My idea is that you quote the timestamp as it is in the original twtxt.txt that you are referring to, so you can do it by simply copy/pasting. Also what are the change that the same _human_ will make two different posts within the same second?!
Regarding the whole cryptographic keys for identity, to me it seems like an unnecessary layer of complexity. If you move to a new house or city you tell people that you moved - you can do the same in a twtxt.txt. Just post something like "I move to this new URL, please follow me there!" I did that with my feeds at least twice, and you guys still seem to read my posts:)
1. Yeah I agrees that nick sound not be part of syntax. Any valid URL to a twtxt.txt-file should be enough and is more clear, so it is not confused with a email (one of the the issues with webfinger and fedivese handles)
2. I think any valid URL would work, since we are not bound to look for exact matches. Accepting both http and https as well as a gemni and gophe could all work as long as the path to the twtxt.txt is the same.
3. My idea is that you quote the timestamp as it is in the original twtxt.txt that you are referring to, so you can do it by simply copy/pasting. Also what are the change that the same _human_ will make two different posts within the same second?!
Regarding the whole cryptographic keys for identity, to me it seems like an unnecessary layer of complexity. If you move to a new house or city you tell people that you moved - you can do the same in a twtxt.txt. Just post something like "I move to this new URL, please follow me there!" I did that with my feeds at least twice, and you guys still seem to read my posts:)
1. Yeah I agrees that nick sound not be part of syntax. Any valid URL to a twtxt.txt-file should be enough and is more clear, so it is not confused with a email (one of the the issues with webfinger and fedivese handles)
2. I think any valid URL would work, since we are not bound to look for exact matches. Accepting both http and https as well as a gemni and gophe could all work as long as the path to the twtxt.txt is the same.
3. My idea is that you quote the timestamp as it is in the original twtxt.txt that you are referring to, so you can do it by simply copy/pasting. Also what are the change that the same _human_ will make two different posts within the same second?!
Regarding the whole cryptographic keys for identity, to me it seems like an unnecessary layer of complexity. If you move to a new house or city you tell people that you moved - you can do the same in a twtxt.txt. Just post something like "I move to this new URL, please follow me there!" I did that with my feeds at least twice, and you guys still seem to read my posts:)
Instead of using
tag: as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear what we are talking about by using in-reply-to: (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or replyto: similar to mailto:1.
(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)2.
(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)3.
(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex:
\\([\\w-]*reply[\\w-]*\\:Is this something that would work?
Instead of using
tag: as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear what we are talking about by using in-reply-to: (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or replyto: similar to mailto:1.
Z)'
2. (in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)'2.
Z)'
I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex: \\([\\w-]*reply[\\w-]*\\:
Is this something that would work?
Instead of using
tag: as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear what we are talking about by using in-reply-to: (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or replyto: similar to mailto:1.
(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)2.
(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)3.
(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex:
\([\w-]*reply[\w-]*\:Is this something that would work?
Instead of using
tag: as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear what we are talking about by using in-reply-to: (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or replyto: similar to mailto:1.
(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)2.
(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)3.
(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex:
\([\w-]*reply[\w-]*\:Is this something that would work?
Instead of using
tag: as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear what we are talking about by using in-reply-to: (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or replyto: similar to mailto:1.
(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)2.
(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)3.
(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex:
\([\w-]*reply[\w-]*\:Is this something that would work?
Instead of using
tag: as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear what we are talking about by using in-reply-to: (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or replyto: similar to mailto:1.
(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)2.
(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)2.
(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex:
\\([\\w-]*reply[\\w-]*\\: - Is this something that would work?
Instead of using
tag: as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear what we are talking about by using in-reply-to: (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or replyto: similar to mailto:1.
(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)2.
(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)3.
(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex:
\([\w-]*reply[\w-]*\:Is this something that would work?
