chronofold VS yjs

If this [0] is what you're talking about, at the moment yjs and automerge are significantly more full-featured and used by many major companies.

[0] https://github.com/dkellner/chronofold

One idea is just to use fewer random bits in peerIDs. Yjs (https://docs.yjs.dev/) gets away with just 32 random bits. If you compromise and use 64 random bits, then even a very popular doc with 1 million lifetime peerIDs will have a < 10^-7 lifetime probability of collision.

I've seen it come up often in collaborative text editors.

Also see: https://github.com/yjs/yjs

You are absolutely right that XML is better for document structures.

My current theory is that Yjs [0] is the new JSON+XML. It gives you both JSON and XML types in one nested structure, all with conflict free merging via incremental updates.

Also, you note the issue with XML and overlapping inline markup. Yjs has an answer for that with its text type, you can apply attributes (for styling or anything else) via arbatary ranges. They can overlap.

Obviously I'm being a little hypabolic suggesting it will replace JSON, the beauty of JSON is is simplicity, but for many systems building on Yjs or similar CRDT based serialisation systems is the future.

https://github.com/yjs/yjs/

Note: https://github.com/yjs/yjs for collaborative "document edition, and user cursors"; has WebRTC, web socket, matrix.org backend

CCP needs to revamp proto anyway, due to recent exploits... practically, nothing really prevents 'em from using some sort of CRDT's to make the state of the sig view eventually consistent (yjs lib, if we're speaking frontendian).

Yjs framework: Because it is a CRDT implementation which provides collaborative editing and offline-first capability.

No problem. The database CRUD features are just helpers as an abstraction on top of yjs: https://docs.yjs.dev/. Eweser adds schemas in the form of typescript types to make using it simpler, more structured, and interoperability easier.