Okay, but in a content field? Wouldn't it be better in a cosign tag, or something?
does it have to use a separate kind? can't you just add an "e" tag and use the content field for +/-
Discussion
nah, agreement, or confirmation, would be this event kind with an "e" tag with the value (second field) of the original testimony
also, i'd say what you are digging at is more like the law concept of testimony, ie, a testament, but attestation is more palatable to the woke mules of satan
oh, also, why in the content field? what else would match up for this place... claim content "i was here" disagreement "-" or confirmation "+" no need to add more than that to it "i agree/disagree" and if there is no "e" tag then it's an Original Claim
Well, I was thinking you could actually respond. 😂 Like how I sometimes respond to zap comments.
well, maybe just add that the first character is + or - to signify agreement or disagreement, and then if anything else, a space first
i don't see any reason why to expand it more than that, to allow other signifiers, just stick with one simple one less bullshit faulty implementation problems
even you can ignore the whitespace idea, but i think a space is a good one, broadening anything is a nightmare... + or - and then a space character if anything else comes after, and the rest is parsed as a comment that humans might want to read
Ah, an attestation "Saw him at Nostriga!" and a confirmation "Yeah, it was great! Hope to see you at Nostradam!"
Nice. 🤌🏼
keep it simple
pay no attention to the c++ and javascript and rust programmers ideas about adding complexity to your spec
What do you think?
very nice