From 5ec656da1fbc085aad2796dd3da663730eae6f5e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bruno Windels Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:21:01 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] split up redactions changes in separate MSC --- proposals/2674-event-relationships.md | 15 +++------------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md b/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md index 06afacf07..7bb9e21d1 100644 --- a/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md +++ b/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md @@ -99,18 +99,9 @@ events. Events with a relation 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 still distinguish -redacted relations from other redacted events of the same event type. -If `m.relates_to` is not an object, or `m._relates_to` would be -an empty object after redacting any other keys, then `m.relates_to` -should also be removed from `content`. - -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. - -This modification to the redaction algorithm requires a new room version. +[MSC3389](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/3389) proposes that +the redaction algorithm should preserve the type and target id of a relation. + However, event relationships can still be used in existing room versions, but the user experience may be worse if redactions are performed.