well summarised @arj!
I agree with the proposal - move towards URI. I think we should map map old @ & etc into the new format (but also still parse old format if needed)
I notice with the "how do we categorize group/ pobox" we have two ways of looking at it:
- what is the intent (is this the semantic)
- what are the mechanics of this
under those lenses pobox could be:
- a sign to use it as a specific direct-mesage like thing
- an indication of how to use the key
They're related but different, and sometimes there's virtue in not revealing the semantics. e.g. with a group_id that's actually just a "cloaked message id" type. You have to know from the context that it's a group_id that we're talking about.
I remember a similar argument (light) I had with @SoapDog about URI's - in my mind there are two sorts of uses from messageId's at the moment:
- A. raw - this id is literally just a key pointing to an individual message
- B. tangle id - this id is pointing to a message that is the root of a tangle and we use it to reference the reduced state of that tangle
I think it's important to be able to distinguish, so you can be clear with a person about what it is you want them to load when you give them a URI. e.g.
This feels like URL versus URI or something to me