typeid

TypeID is similar, though it uses the UUIDv7 directly: https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid Maybe the formalization would be interesting to you. It doesn't have a checksum, though, that seems like an improvement that's worth a few bytes.

I prefer TypeID: https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid

I used https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid for generating api keys for a project. They are nice because you can use prefixes for different type of keys and know immediately what they represent. No dashes also makes them easier to copy paste.

There's a similar proposal called TypeID: https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid E.g.: user_2x4y6z8a0b1c2d3e4f5g6h7j8k

I went to add your UUID variant to my notes and found https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid The main differences: - typeid allows up to a 63 byte prefix - typeid follows it with a full 128-bit UUID I prefer your implementation generally I think - I like the fixed size - just wanted to link something similar.

I'd recommend using Crockford base 32 [0] to encode the bytes. It makes the text more human friendly by eliminating case sensitivity, removing similar/ambiguous letters, and preventing accidental profanity. And in most cases I think you're also better off just using a uuid and encoding its bytes as base 32, in which case you're basically doing type id's [1]. If the "slug" portion of the id actually encodes a uuid, then it gives you the option to store it in your database using an appropriate uuid type. This will make your database much happier than using long string PK's. 0: https://www.crockford.com/base32.html 1: https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid

I feel like https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid is the solution to this

There’s a project called typeid which implements an ID scheme similar to Stripe. https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid

I’ve seen this sort of design referred to as “typed IDs”: https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid Doesn’t use the crockford encoding, but does is another one that minimises confusables. Definitely looks pretty solid, so keen to give them a shot in my next project.

As someone who maintains a UUID library, this is definitely something that has been thought about, especially in the UUIDv6-v8 updates. But it was moved to be considered later as an extension after v6-v8 get approved fully. But all these were talked about and considered before it was punted to a later time. https://github.com/uuid6/uuid6-ietf-draft/issues/27 https://github.com/uuid6/new-uuid-encoding-techniques-ietf-d... https://github.com/uuid6/new-uuid-encoding-techniques-ietf-d... https://github.com/uuid6/new-uuid-encoding-techniques-ietf-d... But there is always TypeID in the meantime which uses UUIDv7 under the hood: https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid Either way, I am in favor of prefixing and using alternative encodings, but it will need some time to figure out the best route. In the mean time, there are so many alternatives. Type

A couple other potentially desirable properties you could incorporate: - K-sortable: ensures good locality when used as an id in a database (e.x. https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid https://github.com/segmentio/ksuid ) - checksum: primarily useful when an id might be conveyed verbally (e.x. customer support) or transcribed (e.x. Bitcoin wallet backup, BIP-39)