…e (#v5yaeha) 100% agree. Fun fact: Couldn’t we actually do that? I mean `timestamp \t twt-id \t reply-id \t text`. Older clients would just include the IDs in the message, but they wouldn’t break. (I …

(#v5yaeha) And just to be clear, without the work on twtxt.net by @prologic and you other people, twtxt would be very very dead now. That would be a shame. I really appreciate your efforts!

(#v5yaeha) I don't have any issue with the (foo) subjects, it's the proliferation of the (foo url) tags. They're just too long and ugly.

(#v5yaeha) @movq No argument that threading is an improvement. But I think (#hash) does that, and I think figuring out how to search should mostly be up to the client.

(#v5yaeha) @lyse Yes, I often read the raw messages. But more to the point, the simplicity of the format is the bulk of the appeal.

…#v5yaeha) @anth @lyse @movq Actually... I _think_ we could change the Twt Hash extension a bit here and remove the need to fully qualify and expand them into full URLs. The reason we did that in the f…

…#v5yaeha) @movq As for developing a Twtxt 2.0 spec/format/protocol, I'm not sure. On one hand @buckket _seems_ to be quite upset that we've used his format/spec and named a "codebase" with a similar/i…

(#v5yaeha) @prologicYes, I think tags should just be #foo, and let the client figure out searching if it cares.

(#v5yaeha) @prologicFor example, this should work (no idea if it does).

(#v5yaeha) @prologic Looks like twtxt.net is already happy with it, so that's good! I'm just going to aim for that.