Subnostr

Everybody regrets that kind 0 has embedded content like that and we are trying to move away from that horrible structure, but ok…

Laeserin 1y ago

I am not aware of any such discussion.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

yeah, complex and inflexible unlike embedding escaped JSON in the content and tag fields

i dunno about the content in zaps though, i had a big problem handling that at first because i didn't realise it could have anything other than ... well, like, URL text, but yes, zaps have JSON inside them

Laeserin 1y ago

We're just going by what we see in the specs. We are not privvy to any discussions going on wherever. Most devs aren't. 🤷‍♀️

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

it is a very opaque thing, you have to be a rockstar to have the inside scoop it seems

Laeserin 1y ago

I keep being told "everybody knows this" "everybody is discussing this".

Is this "everybody" in the room with us, today?

I know of no such discussions and I'm starting to get irritated at the assumption that I'm supposed to know what other people are talking about wherever.

PABLOF7z 1y ago

It’s being discussed informally here in nostr on kind:1s, not structured or formalized or in some secret group or relay; it’s like “we’ve been talking about covenants on bitcoin for years”, not that there was some explicit invite-only meeting; just a popular topic that keeps coming up over the last years.

Laeserin 1y ago

We haven't been here for years and we haven't been part of those discussions. If you want to change the NIP-01 spec, let's go ahead and change it. Someone arriving later shouldn't have to guess where something is headed. You're expecting us to fork off a spec that doesn't yet exist.

Liminal was assuming that NIP-01 contained the expected standard and tried to fit his stuff to that, which was very reasonable.

We can submit a PR for NIP-01, as well.