yeah, I don't think the subject should be tagged on each reply, just the OP, replies shouldn't copy the subject tag imo
Discussion
And please no "RE: subject line"
Agreed. I pulled the RE out of more-speech about a week ago.
From: duck<-semisol at 06/10/23 08:53:16 on wss://relay.damus.io
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
CC: #[8]
>---------------
>And please no "RE: subject line"
I disagree with that
From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/10/23 08:34:41 on wss://atlas.nostr.land
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
>---------------
>yeah, I don't think the subject should be tagged on each reply, just the OP, replies shouldn't copy the subject tag imo
Why include the body of what you’re responding in emails’ broken format of > quotes? A tagged event already provides the quoted text in a far superior/structured way
This looks broken 
See Below.
From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 07:57:53 on wss://atlas.nostr.land
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
>---------------
>Why include the body of what you’re responding in emails’ broken format of > quotes?
I do that so that I can respond to questions and statements in a structured way. Most of nostr is clinging to a twitter mindset where notes are one or two sentences long. I have hopes that nostr will grow beyond that kind of limited thinking and allow very salient in-line discussions.
>A tagged event already provides the quoted text in a far superior/structured way
The tags help the clients to construct the threads; but the tags do not help the reader understand which part of a note the responder is referring to. Again, the twitter mindset is a tough habit to break; but one that I think we should break as soon as possible.
>
>This looks broken
I agree that it looks broken. Looks are the responsibility of the client.
If you do >SPACE instead of just >, we can treat it as markdown and render it better.
From: -VitorPamplona<-D... at 06/11/23 09:42:15 on wss://atlas.nostr.land
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
CC: #[8]
>---------------
> If you do >SPACE instead of just >, we can treat it as markdown and render it better.
You mean like this?
You can perfectly do that and in fact you could argue that’s one use case of highlighter.com; I see myself doing that to pull out specific things to reply to on kind 1s.
But including the whole content you’re replying to embedded in the content looks bad and breaks the structured data formatting of nostr events (increases parsing complexity/ambiguity).
Why not create specific event kind:1 tagging the content you’re replying to and allow threading to do its magic?
Or just reuse highlighter's event kind as a quoted event inside the kind 1. It would be awesome
Exactly
From: -VitorPamplona<-D... at 06/11/23 10:18:15 on wss://atlas.nostr.land
> Or just reuse highlighter's event kind as a quoted event inside the kind 1. It would be awesome
Why would I want another event kind when I can simply edit the contents in place, like this. Remember, I'm not using a phone. I'm sitting at my keyboard, and I have a very large screen. Nostr needs to play well in the desktop environment as well as the mobile environment.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
CC: #[8]
Why make the experience of interacting with your content via a phone painful when you can make it not so? 🤷♂️
Interoperability are one of nostr’s superpowers and this mode of creating events it is detrimental to it
From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 10:57:42 on wss://nos.lol
> Interoperability are one of nostr’s superpowers and this mode of creating events it is detrimental to it
No it's not. There is no rule about the structure of the content of events, nor should there be. Any use can put any damned thing they want to into the contents of their kind:1 events. It's a free nostr! Clients have to live with that.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
>---------------
I’m sorry, but “nostr is free, i do what I want” is a cop-out.
From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 10:56:47 on wss://nos.lol
> Why make the experience of interacting with your content via a phone painful when you can make it not so? 🤷♂️
I am not making the experience of interacting with my content painful. Any pain experienced by the users is due to the client they are using. Some clients will try to parse markup languages. Some won't. Some will try to infer the structure of a note from the paragraphs, others won't. Que Será, Será.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
Because everyone else that reads your posts has a phone, not a large screen. And again, it's just an ugly.
By having a separate highlight event for each quote, you are allowing people to copy, like, zap, report the quoted sections directly. That's the power of nostr. Composability.
From: -VitorPamplona<-D... at 06/11/23 11:03:14 on wss://relay.nostriches.org
> Because everyone else that reads your posts has a phone, not a large screen.
No, not everyone. I think it would be a disaster for Nostr to assume that mobile device was the only allowed terminals. Indeed, who knows what form mobile devices will take in the future. It may be that we will all soon be wearing Vision Pro goggles with really huge virtual screens.
> And again, it's just an ugly.
Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder.
> By having a separate highlight event for each quote, you are allowing people to copy, like, zap, report the quoted sections directly. That's the power of nostr. Composability.
From my point of view the power of nostr is freedom. Feel free to compose all you like. I will feel free to compose as much as I like. I may decide to adapt to the highlighter style of quoting; and I may not. Or I may decide to use both in different use cases. It's a free nostr.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
CC: #[8]
From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 10:16:11 on wss://atlas.nostr.land
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
>---------------
> You can perfectly do that and in fact you could argue that’s one use case of highlighter.com; I see myself doing that to pull out specific things to reply to on kind 1s.
That may be.
>
> But including the whole content you’re replying to embedded in the content looks bad and breaks the structured data formatting of nostr events (increases parsing complexity/ambiguity).
It's up to the author if they want to include the whole content. It's easy enough to edit out the things that don't apply.
>
> Why not create specific event kind:1 tagging the content you’re replying to and allow threading to do its magic?
Oh I think we should all do that. More-speech certainly does. I just don't think that's sufficient for the application of discussion topics and debate.
You can’t search by subject (not 1 character), and you can find the tagged events for the threads snuck more easily and bulletproof via #e queries
See Below.
From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 08:17:01 on wss://atlas.nostr.land
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
>---------------
>You can’t search by subject (not 1 character),
I'm not sure what you mean by (not 1 character). Certainly a client can include the subject tag in a search. More-speech does that now.
>and you can find the tagged events for the threads snuck more easily and bulletproof via #e queries
#e queries are good when you want to search for notes that refer to other notes. However, I also want to search for notes based on the contents of subject (and the note itself). So I want to put any note with "CNN" in the subject into my "CNN" tab. I can't do that with an #e tag.
I agree that CC and From is just duplications from a Nostr-native structures (#e, #p) and should not be rewriten in the reply note. There is no need for it.
This is really ugly.
See below.
From: -VitorPamplona<-D... at 06/11/23 09:47:17 on wss://atlas.nostr.land
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
CC: #[8]
>---------------
> I agree that CC and From is just duplications from a Nostr-native structures (#e, #p) and should not be rewriten in the reply note. There is no need for it.
Ah, but there is. First of all when I reply I can _see_ who that reply is mentioning. Secondly, I can remove those references if I want to change the CC list. For example, if I didn't want to bother nostr:jb55 with this reply, I could either delete the CC or change it to use the nostr:jb55 reference.
> This is really ugly.
Ugliness is the purview of the client, not the message.
>
>
It is the preview of the message because you’re constructing it in a way this world be incredibly difficult for a client to parse all this ambiguous text into something sensible
Check out nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn ‘s coracle or nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c ‘a gossip to see how they allow you to, natively, add/remove p tags
* purview
From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 10:35:06 on wss://relay.damus.io
> ...you’re constructing it in a way [that makes it] incredibly difficult for a client to parse all this ambiguous text into something sensible.
It's a free nostr, you don't have to parse it. I'm certainly not parsing it.
The bottom line is that there are going to be a vast number of different clients. Each client will be pursuing it's own particular use cases for nostr. Some of those use cases will be relatively incompatible with others. C'est la vie! The last thing we want is some kind of fixed UI standard that every client must adhere to. Such a standard would almost certainly restrict the number of possible use cases and make nostr a lot less free.
So, if you don't want to propogate the subject tag, don't propogate it. If you don't want to parse the embedded replies, don't parse them. If you want to use highligher, use highlighter. It's a free nostr.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
CC: #[8]
CC: #[9]
Gossip used to do this, but somehow it got lost in the UI shuffle. I would like to see it come back one day, the ability to at least untag those people you mention in the note, so they aren't alerted that you are talking about them.
From: mikedilger at 06/11 17:50
> Gossip used to do this, but somehow it got lost in the UI shuffle. I would like to see it come back one day, the ability to at least untag those people you mention in the note, so they aren't alerted that you are talking about them.
#[4] made a recommendation that I'm giving serious thought to. His idea was to put the CCs into a seperate text edit window so that they can still be editted by the user, but are not textually included in the message.
I can see the logic behind that. The CCs in the text can be an annoyance to those who are viewing messages on a smaller screen. On the other hand, the inclusion of CCs in written communications is traditional in the extreme, and has a very deep utility. It is good for people to have the CC list thrown in their face so that they realize whom they are communicating with -- and about.
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
CC: #[8]
CC: #[9]
CC: #[10]
But most clients already display the CCs when they display the p tags natively in the client. Perhaps if you’re on a client that doesn’t already show that information it might be helpful but maybe a better solution would be to display more information about the event rather than duplicating it in the content and tags.
You should do that on the e and p tags, not on the text, like social clients do. You can see who you are replying to and remove it on amethyst without having to pollute the text.
From: -VitorPamplona<-D... at 06/11/23 10:35:39 on wss://relay.nostriches.org
> You should do that on the e and p tags, not on the text, like social clients do. You can see who you are replying to and remove it on amethyst without having to pollute the text.
I don't mind "polluting the text" because I don't consider it "pollution". I also don't think the e and p tags are sufficient to give me what I want. And...it's a free nostr; what I _should_ do is up to me.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
CC: #[8]
Since I coded the same thing you have with e and p tags, I think you are wrong. And I don't even have the power of a desktop toake it work.
From: -VitorPamplona<-D... at 06/11/23 11:07:47 on wss://relay.nostriches.org
> Since I coded the same thing you have with e and p tags, I think you are wrong. And I don't even have the power of a desktop toake it work.
It is your right to think I'm wrong. It's a free nostr. It is my right to persist in my wrongness. It's a free nostr.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
CC: #[8]
Yep, you do you. Just know that posts from your clients look very ugly and difficult to read in all others.
From: -VitorPamplona<-D... at 06/11/23 11:24:22 on wss://relay.nostriches.org
> Yep, you do you. Just know that posts from your clients look very ugly and difficult to read in all others.
I look at that screenshot and I think: "My, how lovely!".
Anyway, I'd like to thank you for this discussion. I actually have been listening to you. It's just that it's been so long since I've had a good debate on a free social network that I couldn't resist poking the bear a little.
>
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
I mean that’s obvious, no one is arguing that you should be restricted in any way, we’re discussing best approaches, but the “nostr is free, I’ll do what I want” is certainly a conversation stopper.
The same way you consider the Twitter way of thinking lacking creativity I think this way of email-thinking is falling short of what it could be.
Fwiw I agree with the idea of using nostr content in ways way beyond the Twitter use case and in particular I’m interested in the email-like mode (I wrote an email client when I was a 12 so I’ve always been very interested in the format)
From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 11:14:37 on wss://nos.lol
> ...The “nostr is free, I’ll do what I want” is certainly a conversation stopper.
Good. I'm glad you figured that out.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
Lol, you could have said so from the beginning!
🙌
From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 11:33:58 on wss://nos.lol
> Lol, you could have said so from the beginning!
>
> 🙌
What fun would that have been? Be well.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
I’m fine with the early email style responses, I’ve always thought it was a good format, but could you perhaps change the header? Maybe don’t include the relay, time, or CCs since those can more easily be embedded in the event instead of the content?
From: (jsm) at 06/11 11:38
> I’m fine with the early email style responses, I’ve always thought it was a good format, but could you perhaps change the header? Maybe don’t include the relay, time, or CCs since those can more easily be embedded in the event instead of the content?
I've shortened the header significantly. And I've moved the CC:s to the end. For the time being I want to leave the CC:s in place because I don't want to create a horrible UI with checkboxes to select who should be mentioned. I just edit the list and the mentions tagged accordingly.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
CC: #[8]
Thank you, that looks so much better.
What about changing the more-speech UI to allow editing the list of CCs that goes into the event as text instead of doing that editing in the content? It seems like you’re editing the content so you can edit the tags instead of editing the tags themselves.
> What about changing the more-speech UI to allow editing the list of CCs that goes into the event as text[...]
Editing text with a keyboard and mouse is pretty easy. I am really loath to create a special UI with a bunch of checkboxes for each CC.
In this thread I've been leaving all the headers and CCs in place because the thread was _about_ those headers and CCs. Typically, however, I simply ^A and delete them before I start composing. In this reply, for example, I simply editted out the header and CCs.
That looks much slicker and doesn’t include any repetitive information that clients already show.
What I meant for the CCs is editing the CCs in a separate text field (no annoying and slow checkboxes) as plain text and then using that separate text to change the tags instead of doing the editing in the content field.
From: jsm<-DerekRoss at 06/11 14:08
> What I meant for the CCs is editing the CCs in a separate text field (no annoying and slow checkboxes) as plain text and then using that separate text to change the tags instead of doing the editing in the content field.
Or... Perhaps clients who don't want to show CCs can remove them...
This is what a reply looks like without the headers and CCs. ^A and we're off to the races.
🤙🤙 you too 😊
> I'm not sure what you mean by (not 1 character). Certainly a client can include the subject tag in a search. More-speech does that now.
You can’t do #search filter as relays don’t index non-1-char tags
> #e queries are good when you want to search for notes that refer to other notes. However, I also want to search for notes based on the contents of subject (and the note itself). So I want to put any note with "CNN" in the subject into my "CNN" tab. I can't do that with an #e tag.
My point is you don’t need the subject tag everywhere, just on the OP; each reply you can get by #e:[OP’S ID]
Iirc the subject NIP doesn’t mention anything about replies having to copy the subject tag everywhere
See below.
From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 10:11:33 on wss://atlas.nostr.land
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
>---------------
> > I'm not sure what you mean by (not 1 character). Certainly a client can include the subject tag in a search. More-speech does that now.
>
> You can’t do #search filter as relays don’t index non-1-char tags
That's true. However, I _can_ search every message that comes in from the relays I read. I should point out that more-speech reads, and builds a database of, every message that comes in from subscribed relays. (actually, you can set each relay to read all, trusted, or web-of-trust)
This is a significant factor that the twitter mindset has not really considered. Clients that don't adhere to the twitter mindset may tend to treat the relays as message sources more than as search engines.
>
> > #e queries are good when you want to search for notes that refer to other notes. However, I also want to search for notes based on the contents of subject (and the note itself). So I want to put any note with "CNN" in the subject into my "CNN" tab. I can't do that with an #e tag.
>
> My point is you don’t need the subject tag everywhere, just on the OP; each reply you can get by #e:[OP’S ID]
That's true _if_ the sending client obeys the threading nips. I note that, at the moment, quite a few do not. And, in any case, I don't want to restrict my search to a single thread. I want all message with CNN in the subject in my CNN tab.
>
> Iirc the subject NIP doesn’t mention anything about replies having to copy the subject tag everywhere
I don't recall. I'm not interested in the legalities. The point I'm trying to make is that topics and threads are distinct things. We can have several disconnected threads within a topic, or several topics within a single thread.