Yes, exactly. When a client supports both kind 1 and kind 20, it can easily confuse users, and it's hard to handle because, from their perspective, the difference between the two isn't that significant.

As of now, I don't see the need for adding a new type to distinguish image-based notes. I also don't understand why Olas is doing it this way, it could easily achieve the same result with a special tag, like ["c", "image"]

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

It might be the temptation for everything to have a category, and kind 1 are called "short TEXT notes" on the NIPs repo, or as a "simple plaintext note." in NIP-10 specifically. Neither of those suggest that images belong within the umbrella of kind 1. Clients aren't even required to render image links in kind 1 notes.

Yeah, it's totally fine for clients not to render image links in kind 1 notes, right?

Absolutely! Voyage does this and works great!

The same would not be said about kind 20, though. If clients support it, they are expected to render the images.

oh, that is why I no longer see the picture tab for posting?

Haha, Jumble is gradually phasing out support for kind 20

love to hear it!