I understand your perspective, but I think this is probably not possible. It isn’t the case now and will become even less so as more features emerge. It will be impossible for every client to offer all of the content types available on every other client. There will be a core set of content that social clients are expected to support, but there will be many clients that take a specific approach to features and content.

Nobody would be able to manage their product roadmap by playing whack-a-mole with other developers and their priorities. Even more so if some developers are not interested in signaling their roadmap or coordinating new features or changes.

What is crucial is that core features that have been rolled out across clients continue to work and that developers don’t unilaterally break things that have worked in a specific way.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Nah. That what NIP is for. If there are innovations out of the NIP, that impacts viewers of other social clients for whatever reason, then there must be a ground rule that all devs agree on this

I don’t think we are talking about the same thing. My comment was about expecting that every client is going to support every type of content. Maybe that wasn’t your point.

It is also the case that clients already implement things differently and have used NIPs in ways that break existing content implementations in other clients.

Some developers are going to be more interested in collaboration and ensuring the ecosystem is healthy than others.

Nobody is asking every client to be identical to each other - nobody wants Twitter 1,2 and 3 lol, and clients can pick any feature NIP. Be different and celebration innovation.

But if there is a functional interoperability issue between clients that prevents users from interacting with other users on Nostr then it’s a problem.

We agree.

is text and zaps the minimum functional interoperability now?