From 3e6e566a6214612da79122ea6f68f03d8565df69 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bruno Windels Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 15:35:30 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] argument why m.relates_to should be preserved by redactions more general but still give example of redacted edits --- proposals/2674-event-relationships.md | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md b/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md index 05baae547..e6ffffbee 100644 --- a/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md +++ b/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md @@ -67,7 +67,11 @@ events. Relations may be redacted like any other event. The `m.relates_to`.`rel_type` and `m.relates_to`.`event_id` fields should -be preserved over redactions, so that clients can distinguish redacted edits +be preserved over redactions, so that clients can still distinguish +redacted relations from other redacted events of the event type. + +One example is telling redacted edits (as proposed in +[MSC 2676](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2676)) apart from from normal redacted messages, and maintain reply ordering. FIXME: synapse doesn't do this yet