I don't get why #[0] doesn't have a "name", just a "display_name".
Login to reply
Replies (19)
I think it was because most clients use the "name" in mentions, and you couldn't @jack if he didn't have the field set
He's a magician! ππͺ
You have a name and not display name? Why do we need both? Which is preferable?
Agreed. Having both is really confusing to new users. Especially when the βhandleβ allows spaces. Like, how then is it different than the display name?
The confusing part is people expect @names to be unique
clients are free to map this however and they do, and have different leading suggestions in their profile editors that build different end user expectations. the meta data tags arenβt specific enough to express to a different client the intention from the user. I think if there was a third βmention_nameβ (not a third field for the end user) which can be mapped to the handle in damus but the display name in snort would allow interoperability of intention from the end user.
yeah, the names thing is anti pattern; some apps even show it as usernames which is even more confusing for people
what the fuck difference does it make? personal choice and nunya.
Everybody implements "name", it's the basic thing and it's here since the beginning, "display_name" was invented as a Damus extra and never announced or specified anywhere, thus it's not implemented in many places.
I agree we don't need both.
Thereβs also displayName that Iβve encountered around π€¦ββοΈ
Wut do you call what I use
Nvm I think itβs that same thing display name thing
Switched
Now Iβm even more confused because Damus settings has βyour nameβ and βusernameβ
I think username is meant to be name? And βyour nameβ is unnecessary?
And then there are pet namesβ¦
Pet names are the bestβ¦ theyβre from the heart β€οΈ
I do the same as Jack. Otherwise it would show up as pete@pete
I like pseudonyms for Name display
βGiven namesβ for account name