Samuel
just realised I can’t add a “posted by graysky” field to posts because then it would become embarrassingly obvious that I don’t use my own app
3 2 48
Samuel
wait so what’s the conclusion of abusing labels for this case specifically. Should I do something more like unspeccedPostedBy: “Graysky” on the post itself (if that’s possible). Or abuse facets instead?
2 10
P(aul) Frazee
probably the best move would be to propose a lexicon change, second best would be an off spec field that’s maybe an object for that kind of metadata
1 6
P(aul) Frazee
if the goal is for other clients to be able to render this info then you ideally want to think very generally, like a display name and a URL
2 6
Samuel
Yeah true I’m probably not thinking big enough here. My primary motivation is so I can ask Jaz to see the stats on graysky posts lol
2 4
Samuel
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:47.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/47.0 Bluesky 1.50.0 Graysky 0.1.3
8
Orual
Honestly, it's pretty based even if he meant it the way I think you're implying.
1
Robin Berjon
You're actually *more* likely to get that result with free-form "app.graysky.metadata.version": "blah" fields! Label+URL is probably safe: can't game the label field because it's shown to humans, and URL is likely to be equality matched. Or even stricter, make it a DID for the client's account.
1
Mykael Wyvern — 🔮🧙🏻‍♂️🐉
IMHO it encourages experimentation by setting clear rules and the possibility of things being incorporated upstream.. otherwise it's a free for all.. what about PDS' adding their own labels or middle tiers? Don't want them stepping on each other's labels..
1 3
P(aul) Frazee
100% agree. The trick is finding ways for us to avoid clobbering each other and to potentially support each other’s features and avoid blockers to doing so.
2 4
Samuel
I was thinking prefixing with unspecced, to match the lexicon. So like unspeccedAttribution: {}
1 2