@movq If we're focusing on solving the "missing roots" problems. I would start to think about "client recommendations". The first recommendation would be:

1. Replying to a Twt that has no initial Subject must itself have a Subject of the form (hash; url).

This way it’s a hint to fetching clients that follow B, but not A (in the case of no mentions) that the Subject/Root might (very likely) is in the feed url.

And speaking of Twtxt (See: #xushlda, feeds should be treated as append-only. Your client(s) should be appending Twts to the bottom of the file. Edits should never modify the timestamp of the Twt being edited, nor should a Twt that was edited by deleted, unless you actually intended to delete it (but that's more complicated as it's very hard to control or tell clients what to do in a truely decentralised ecosystem for the deletion case). #Twtxt #Client #Recommendations

@bender You said:

as long as those working on clients can reach an agreement on how to move forward. That has proven, though, to be a pickle in the past.

I think this is because we probably need to start thinking about three different aspects to the ecosystem and document them out:

• Specifications (as they are now)
• Server recommendations (e.g: Timeline, yarnd, etc)
• Client recommendations (e.g: jenny, tt, tt2, twet, etc)