SwBratcher on Nostr: I say, Yes to editing on the client layer, because typo. But, I say NO to edits on ...

I say, Yes to editing on the client layer, because typo. But, I say NO to edits on the protocol layer. There is a greater value to the protocol for the permanance of the notes than to a flexible note for the one user.

Here's my thought process and where I arrived:

I want to know that the post I'm looking at is the post that was placed, and the comments are about this version of it, and the repost are about this version of it. That's important to me as a community observer.

As a contributor, I want to fix my typos.

So, on those times that I look back and see a typo, it's usually right after I post it and before anyone has engaged with it. I just pop over to Nos.social, open the post. Copy the content. Delete the post. Go back to Primal, make sure it deleted, make the post anew with the typo fixed, and resubmit it for all to see without the typo.

That workflow could be provided by Primal. Primal could let me "edit" whereby my original post would be deleted and the new version would be submitted as a new post. After my edit is ready, Primal tells me it's about to request relay deletion of the original post and submit this new version of my post, to which I confirm. That ability could expire after 5 minutes or some short term useful time limit, at the client level.

But, I as the user am not inclined to do that anyway after someone has engaged with it. I'm more likely to just post a comment with the whole "I mean *typo." if it's even worth it. This is the case because the note's consistency after engagement is more valuable to the community than my ability to fix the typo is to me.

This suggested functionality on Primal or any client is my ideal workflow on the protocol, while preserving the important features yet accommodating the necessary one for user experience.