As usual 😅
I know we talked about this at one point, but I don't remember the details. How would I send e.g. a calendar event to a NIP 29 group? Just `h` tag it? I thought the purpose of the new kinds was to namespace content so that it doesn't leak outside the group. You'd need the same mechanism for every kind, which seems like nostr:nprofile1qyd8wumn8ghj7urewfsk66ty9enxjct5dfskvtnrdakj7qgmwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8wetnw3jhymnzw33jucm0d5hsz9thwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjme0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uqzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vahj2kfz 's preferred approach. I think a repost-like event with the standard event stringified in the content would be an easy way to support any event kind within a group.
I never proposed different kinds in the context of NIP-29, and I think I have retracted my proposal for different kinds in NIP-72 too, but now I don't remember what was behind that anymore.
I've been thinking about having all sorts of kinds under NIP-29 and I think it all fits. The kinds 9, 10 and 11 are described in the NIP because there was no generic chat kind message anywhere else; and kind 1 is already too loaded so it made sense to make a new one. All other kinds should be safe.
Wouldn't that require current implementations to ignore events with an `h` tag? Seems like you'd want to exclude notes belonging to a group. Of course, NIP 72 has the same problem currently.
For public groups (communities):
Chat
👉 read + write within the community only
Everything else (including "kind 1")
👉 anyone can read anywhere + only members of the community(ies) can write
Maybe this should be made clear since I don't even know if people agree with me on it, but the difference in NIP-29 is that the relay shouldn't give all random events to anyone who walks by unless they include an "h" tag at least.
