docs: propose TIC v1 specification - #2
Draft
chopperdaddy wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Example decoded metadata:
{ "topic": "0x1234", "version": "0x1" }Relates to #1.
Motivation
This enables images, video, audio, text, and other media to function as standalone Ethscriptions while remaining discoverable and threadable by TIC-aware indexers and clients.
The proposal incorporates feedback from Issue #1 and its discussion, including:
p,op, anddinstead of a genericx-metafieldticlowercase as the canonical protocol identifierrule=esip6What this specification defines
Backwards compatibility
TIC v1 is additive.
This PR does not enable v1 writers or change existing application behavior.
Important provisional decisions
The current draft proposes:
version: "0x1"insideddcommentandreactionas the initial operationsreplyoperationReview requested
The specification contains a dedicated Review Questions section. Feedback is especially requested on:
p/op/dshould be formalized as an Ethscriptions-wide conventionFollow-up work
After the specification reaches consensus:
Testing
The complete examples in the specification were programmatically decoded and checked for:
git diff --checkalso passes.