|
|
|
@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The current spec implies that a thread root is considered within the thread, but
|
|
|
|
|
we argue that this does not make sense, and a thread root is not "in" the thread
|
|
|
|
|
branching from it.
|
|
|
|
|
branching from it, and neither are its non-thread children (e.g. edits).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is important for creating and interpreting read receipts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -25,8 +25,9 @@ says:
|
|
|
|
|
> Events not in a thread but still in the room are considered to be part of the
|
|
|
|
|
> "main timeline", or a special thread with an ID of `main`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This explicitly includes thread roots in the thread which branches off them, and
|
|
|
|
|
implicitly _excludes_ those messages from being in the `main` thread.
|
|
|
|
|
This explicitly includes thread roots (and their non-thread children) in the
|
|
|
|
|
thread which branches off them, and implicitly _excludes_ those messages from
|
|
|
|
|
being in the `main` thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is problematic because:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -65,7 +66,8 @@ two places in the UI.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Proposal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We propose that thread roots are in the main timeline, making the definition:
|
|
|
|
|
We propose that thread roots and their non-thread children are in the main
|
|
|
|
|
timeline, making the definition:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> An event is considered to be "in a thread" if:
|
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
|