Nostr Web Client

From reading that article, Lexicons just sound like various note kinds, which are defined in the NIPS.

For instance, a kind 1 post is just a short text note and most clients can display kind 1 notes fine. They may make choices about how they render certain text within a kind 1. For instance, an image URL contained in a kind 1 is often rendered as the image itself. Same thing with video URLs. But a client could just render the URL text and make it clickable to open the media in a separate tab.

Meanwhile, there are also specific media kinds, too. Such as Kind 20 for images, kind 21 for videos, and kind 22 for short-form portrait videos.

You can find the definitions of all of these kinds and what they can, should, and must contain in the NIPs repo here:

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips

Most of them are pretty well defined. You will find that some clients don't always follow these definitions, though...

Garbage nsec 11mo ago

Sort of but Kinds here can be pretty loose. Lexicons on ATproto can get very tight. Like taking Nostr Kinds and putting them in a Hollywood spy movie where the technician looks at the monitor and says "enhance". You've got schemas, and then sub-schemas, and even sub-sub-schemas.

It would be like Nostr having a developer-defined sub-schema for embedding, say, javascript charts in Kind1 posts. So ATporoto lexicons are living things. Kinds here tend to get locked down a little early (like we just hit "save and publish"), and if you a client wants to go down certain alleyways then either it's up to the client to just go down those alleyways and see, or there would be a need for a new Kind.

It's not so much about centralisation since ATproto lexicon development is pretty decentralised (arguably more so than Nostr). It's more about the way they're perceived.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.