Yeah, we looked at it a bit. To be honest, the biggest blocker was that we wrote Twirp as a gRPC alternative, so we already had protobuf service definitions in

Yeah, we looked at it a bit. To be honest, the biggest blocker was that we wrote Twirp as a gRPC alternative, so we already had protobuf service definitions in some spots, and it seemed easiest to keep using the same thing. Adding another transport encoding would be good, but its important that any Twirp server can support all of the encodings. We would need to be able to map a message defined in capnproto to a protobuf message definition, which didn't seem completely trivial when we looked at it, since capnproto uses its own IDL, I believe. I don't know a ton about capnproto, though, and I'm open to learning more about it. We would just need to work under the constraints that JSON and Protobuf requests would need to still work.