nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn is this the intended way to do reviews using NIP-32? this feels wrong and weird; nostrapp.link generating a coracle-based taxonomy? 🤔
Discussion
seeing this in non-monospaced font is what feels most wrong and weird 😂
Yeah, the ontology is defined in one place and used everywhere. It has nothing to do with coracle, but in theory you could go to ontology.coracle.social and look up the meaning of terms.
On the other hand, you're right that it's confusing, and I regret L tags.
Why don’t we remove the L from the spec?
there's this one weird trick in nostr that no one talks about: not following the spec
Sure, but if something is agreed upon to be a bad idea and the few implementations that exist implement the bad idea, removing it from both could help prevent a bad idea from spreading.
I’m sure nostr:npub1xdtducdnjerex88gkg2qk2atsdlqsyxqaag4h05jmcpyspqt30wscmntxy added the L tag without looking at it too much: “it’s in the spec, the only implementation uses it, I’ll copy it”
I think I need to use l tags for Nostr Graveyard. I want the app to generate kind 30000 lists of inactive profiles and seeing how the title tag is being used for display purposes and is not searchable, I can use the l tag as a searchable identifier. Will probably leave out the L tag.
I like the idea of removing it from the spec
LFG! 🙌
I'll draft a PR. It won't be backwards compatible but the json has little enough adoption I think
ACK
Ok, so maybe this won't work, I was fixing my explore page this morning, and it searches by namespace. If we had prefix searches on tags still we could bake the namespace into the tag and use prefix search, but I think that's gone? Anyway, reviewing the design I now remember why it ended up the way it did.