what is the point of returning the object? also if enough people are relying on it, is it worth considering adding it to the spec?
Discussion
The entire point of a spec is that you don't keep changing it in backward-incompatible ways.
the object spec could be added as "should" instead of "must." you still have the issue of other clients not implementing it correctly and treating it as a requirement, but unfortunately there's not much we can do about it outside of shaming them. 😄
Yes, that's true, everything is hard.
I think we need some sort of local validation per each programming language.
Nip01.validate(payload) . Naive aproach
Specs are hard to follow and no mater what you do there will always be room for errors (create-at, created_at, createdAt which is it as they are all correct) or misinterpretation
The proper procedure would be to propose it to the spec and allow the community to debate such an addition.
sure but the nips readme says one of the requirements for changes to the nips is for at least two different clients to have it implemented. so hy definition, you'd have to implement it first. or at least it's a reasonable way to do it.
There is no point and there is no need.
No, it’s not worth adding to the spec.
ahh I see. very good.
No there is no point in adding it. Also nothing was started here. There was a mistake in the code since the very first commit (guess insignificant enough that nobody cared so far). ONE single app has used it afaik, which was updated. There was already a change for this which will be in the next release.
see also:
note1thfe2djqkffzrghjznnzkcpd3lv3643lslfzujggtx5ugx7mmm3qa4h3er
i was just going by what nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 said that there are lots of sites now depending on it. if there are, then alby is about to break alot of websites. i'd hope alby would provide a deprecation period so people can update their sites. perhaps you can suggest that