From b590a4c4c47d13f785f7ea5ed317514d9e4ac3f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bruno Windels Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 16:34:30 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] make wording clearer and move to bottom of section --- proposals/2674-event-relationships.md | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md b/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md index ba14489df..373101269 100644 --- a/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md +++ b/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md @@ -35,9 +35,6 @@ If it helps, you can think of relations as a "subject verb object" triple, where the subject is the relation event itself; the verb is the `rel_type` field of the `m.relates_to` and the object is the `event_id` field. -These do not yet replace the -[reply mechanism currently defined in the spec](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/latest#rich-replies). - We consciously do not support multiple different relations within a single event, in order to keep the API simple. Another MSC, like [MSC 3051](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/3051), @@ -47,6 +44,8 @@ this would facilitate certain use cases. Different subtypes of references could be defined through additional fields on the `m.relates_to` object, to distinguish between replies, threads, etc. This MSC doesn't attempt to define these subtypes. +Relations do not yet replace the +[reply mechanism currently defined in the spec](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/latest#rich-replies). ### Relation types