(edit:…) and (delete:…) into feeds. It's not just a simple "add this to your cache" or "replace the cache with this set of messages" anymore. Hmm. We might need to think about the consequences of that, can this be exploited somehow, etc.
If that's what we want to enforce, forget about my other message above in the thread.
Would the GDPR would apply to a one-person client like jenny? I seriously hope not. If someone asks me to delete an email they sent me, I don't think I have to honour that request, no matter how European they are.
I am really bothered by the idea that someone could force me to delete my private, personal record of my interactions with them. Would I have to delete my journal entries about them too if they asked?
Maybe a public-facing client like yarnd needs to consider this, but that also bothers me. I was actually thinking about making an Internet Archive style twtxt archiver, letting you explore past twts, including long-dead feeds, see edit histories, deleted twts, etc.
An edit twt would look like this:
2024-09-20T14:57:11Z (edit:#123467) foobar
So we now have to verify that
#123467 actually exists in this same feed. How do we do that? We must build a list of all twts/hashes of this feed and then check if #123467 is in that list. Right?You’re kind of implying that it would be possible to cryptographically validate that this hash belongs to this feed. That’s not possible, is it? 🤔
An edit twt would look like this:
2024-09-20T14:57:11Z (edit:#123467) foobar
So we now have to verify that
#123467 actually exists in this same feed. How do we do that? We must build a list of all twts/hashes of this feed and then check if #123467 is in that list. Right?You’re kind of implying that it would be possible to cryptographically validate that this hash belongs to this feed. That’s not possible, is it? 🤔
An edit twt would look like this:
2024-09-20T14:57:11Z (edit:#123467) foobar
So we now have to verify that
#123467 actually exists in this same feed. How do we do that? We must build a list of all twts/hashes of this feed and then check if #123467 is in that list. Right?You’re kind of implying that it would be possible to cryptographically validate that this hash belongs to this feed. That’s not possible, is it? 🤔
An edit twt would look like this:
2024-09-20T14:57:11Z (edit:#123467) foobar
So we now have to verify that
#123467 actually exists in this same feed. How do we do that? We must build a list of all twts/hashes of this feed and then check if #123467 is in that list. Right?You’re kind of implying that it would be possible to cryptographically validate that this hash belongs to this feed. That’s not possible, is it? 🤔
(replyto:…) over (edit:#): (replyto:…) relies on clients always processing the entire feed – otherwise they wouldn’t even notice when a twt gets updated. a) This is more expensive, b) you cannot edit twts once they get rotated into an archived feed, because there is nothing signalling clients that they have to re-fetch that archived feed.I guess neither matters that much in practice. It’s still a disadvantage.
(replyto:…) over (edit:#): (replyto:…) relies on clients always processing the entire feed – otherwise they wouldn’t even notice when a twt gets updated. a) This is more expensive, b) you cannot edit twts once they get rotated into an archived feed, because there is nothing signalling clients that they have to re-fetch that archived feed.I guess neither matters that much in practice. It’s still a disadvantage.
(replyto:…) over (edit:#): (replyto:…) relies on clients always processing the entire feed – otherwise they wouldn’t even notice when a twt gets updated. a) This is more expensive, b) you cannot edit twts once they get rotated into an archived feed, because there is nothing signalling clients that they have to re-fetch that archived feed.I guess neither matters that much in practice. It’s still a disadvantage.
(replyto:…) over (edit:#): (replyto:…) relies on clients always processing the entire feed – otherwise they wouldn’t even notice when a twt gets updated. a) This is more expensive, b) you cannot edit twts once they get rotated into an archived feed, because there is nothing signalling clients that they have to re-fetch that archived feed.I guess neither matters that much in practice. It’s still a disadvantage.
.git directory. Last time I did that was over 11 years ago. 😅 (I often give introductions about Git, but they’re about day to day usage and very high-level.)I’ve gotta say, Git is one of the very few pieces of software that I love using and teaching. The files on your disk follow a simple enough format/pattern and you can actually teach people how it all works and, for example, *why* things like rebasing produce a particular result. 👌
.git directory. Last time I did that was over 11 years ago. 😅 (I often give introductions about Git, but they’re about day to day usage and very high-level.)I’ve gotta say, Git is one of the very few pieces of software that I love using and teaching. The files on your disk follow a simple enough format/pattern and you can actually teach people how it all works and, for example, *why* things like rebasing produce a particular result. 👌
.git directory. Last time I did that was over 11 years ago. 😅 (I often give introductions about Git, but they’re about day to day usage and very high-level.)I’ve gotta say, Git is one of the very few pieces of software that I love using and teaching. The files on your disk follow a simple enough format/pattern and you can actually teach people how it all works and, for example, *why* things like rebasing produce a particular result. 👌
.git directory. Last time I did that was over 11 years ago. 😅 (I often give introductions about Git, but they’re about day to day usage and very high-level.)I’ve gotta say, Git is one of the very few pieces of software that I love using and teaching. The files on your disk follow a simple enough format/pattern and you can actually teach people how it all works and, for example, *why* things like rebasing produce a particular result. 👌
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
Chained edits:
[#abcd111] [2024-09-20T12:00:00Z] [Hello!]
[#abcd222] [2024-09-20T12:10:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello World!]
[#abcd333] [2024-09-20T12:20:00Z] [(edit:#abcd222) Hello Birds!]
Latest edit wins:
[#abcd111] [2024-09-20T12:00:00Z] [Hello!]
[#abcd222] [2024-09-20T12:10:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello World!]
[#abcd333] [2024-09-20T12:20:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello Birds!]
Does the first version have any benefits? I don’t think so … ?
Chained edits:
[#abcd111] [2024-09-20T12:00:00Z] [Hello!]
[#abcd222] [2024-09-20T12:10:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello World!]
[#abcd333] [2024-09-20T12:20:00Z] [(edit:#abcd222) Hello Birds!]
Latest edit wins:
[#abcd111] [2024-09-20T12:00:00Z] [Hello!]
[#abcd222] [2024-09-20T12:10:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello World!]
[#abcd333] [2024-09-20T12:20:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello Birds!]
Does the first version have any benefits? I don’t think so … ?
Chained edits:
\n \n \n
\n \n [(edit:#abcd111) Hello World!]
\n \n [(edit:#abcd222) Hello Birds!]
Latest edit wins:
\n \n \n
\n \n [(edit:#abcd111) Hello World!]
\n \n [(edit:#abcd111) Hello Birds!]
Does the first version have any benefits? I don’t think so … ?
Chained edits:
[#abcd111] [2024-09-20T12:00:00Z] [Hello!]
[#abcd222] [2024-09-20T12:10:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello World!]
[#abcd333] [2024-09-20T12:20:00Z] [(edit:#abcd222) Hello Birds!]
Latest edit wins:
[#abcd111] [2024-09-20T12:00:00Z] [Hello!]
[#abcd222] [2024-09-20T12:10:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello World!]
[#abcd333] [2024-09-20T12:20:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello Birds!]
Does the first version have any benefits? I don’t think so … ?
Chained edits:
[#abcd111] [2024-09-20T12:00:00Z] [Hello!]
[#abcd222] [2024-09-20T12:10:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello World!]
[#abcd333] [2024-09-20T12:20:00Z] [(edit:#abcd222) Hello Birds!]
Latest edit wins:
[#abcd111] [2024-09-20T12:00:00Z] [Hello!]
[#abcd222] [2024-09-20T12:10:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello World!]
[#abcd333] [2024-09-20T12:20:00Z] [(edit:#abcd111) Hello Birds!]
Does the first version have any benefits? I don’t think so … ?
By the way: Since we have so few modern twtxt/Yarn clients, forking jenny might not be the worst idea. *If* you wanted to take it into a very different direction, then by all means, go for it. 👍
By the way: Since we have so few modern twtxt/Yarn clients, forking jenny might not be the worst idea. *If* you wanted to take it into a very different direction, then by all means, go for it. 👍
By the way: Since we have so few modern twtxt/Yarn clients, forking jenny might not be the worst idea. *If* you wanted to take it into a very different direction, then by all means, go for it. 👍
By the way: Since we have so few modern twtxt/Yarn clients, forking jenny might not be the worst idea. *If* you wanted to take it into a very different direction, then by all means, go for it. 👍
Do you consider crawling archived feeds a problem/failure? 🤔
Do you consider crawling archived feeds a problem/failure? 🤔
Do you consider crawling archived feeds a problem/failure? 🤔
Do you consider crawling archived feeds a problem/failure? 🤔
- Clients _should_ order Twts by their timestamp.
- Clients *must* validate all
edit and delete requests that the hash being indicated belongs to and came from that feed.- Client _should_ honour delete requests and delete Twts from their cache/archive.
- Clients _should_ order Twts by their timestamp.
- Clients *must* validate all
edit and delete requests that the hash being indicated belongs to and came from that feed.- Client _should_ honour delete requests and delete Twts from their cache/archive.