There's a couple reasons to have it: simplicity and backwards compatibility.
If its not a URL clients MUST support blossom, increasing the barrier to entry.
Discussion
Fair enough, but you could make the same argument for nostr:noteid links. Imho we should still think about how to potentially get there step by step, no?
What is the argument, im confused.
Are you refering to note vs nevent?
Or nostr:nevent vs https:njump ?
Because if it is the latter, i did not even bother to respond the first time, but non of the nostr clients understand https: references as a reference to a note, just as a reference to a webpage, that contains that note.
Whereas all the clients do understand a https://......mp3/webm/mp4/jpg and render it.
So id say no, the same argument cant be made. It would have been true if all the clients understood https://...nevent but nostr:nevent would have been some new thing that was introduced later
Yes, that's what I'm referring to.
Some clients understood https first and nostr later, and some clients do replace https URLs and render the note properly.
Primal, at least on Android, will render the following as if it were a nostr/nevent link (even though it's https dot primal net)
https://primal.net/e/note1yv7meallmrsjreaqgtula2uvq5kfakltz893f4y4as9n6zfv359q4kx4gx
