From f24945e762f5f72455dd8ff1e8ad31d96120dcc1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bruno Windels Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:07:24 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] reword why not adopt m.in_reply_to --- proposals/2674-event-relationships.md | 17 ++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md b/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md index 3cac06578..ffcd491d5 100644 --- a/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md +++ b/proposals/2674-event-relationships.md @@ -186,18 +186,21 @@ versus ``` The reasons to go with `rel_type` is: - * this format is now in use in the wider matrix ecosystem without a prefix, + * This format is now in use in the wider matrix ecosystem without a prefix, in spite of the original MSC 1849 not being merged. This situation is not ideal but we still don't want to break compatibility with several clients. - * we don't need the extra indirection to let multiple relations apply to a given pair of + * We don't need the extra indirection to let multiple relations apply to a given pair of events, as that should be expressed as separate relation events. - * if we want 'adverbs' to apply to 'verbs' in the subject-verb-object triples which + * If we want 'adverbs' to apply to 'verbs' in the subject-verb-object triples which relations form, then we apply it as mixins to the relation data itself rather than trying to construct subject-verb-verb-object sentences. - * so, we should pick a simpler shape rather than inheriting the mistakes of m.in_reply_to - and we have to keep ugly backwards compatibility around for m.in_reply_to - but we can entirely separately worry about migrating replies to new-style-aggregations in future - perhaps at the same time as doing threads. + * We decided to not adopt the format used by `m.in_reply_to` as it allows for multiple relations + and is hence overly flexible. Also, the relation type of `m.in_reply_to` is also overly specific + judged by the guidelines for `rel_type`s laid out in this MSC. Having replies use the same + format as relations is postponed to a later MSC, but it would likely involve replies + adopting the relation format with a more broadly useful `rel_type` (possibly the `m.reference` + type proposed in [MSC3267](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/3267)), + rather than relations adopting the replies format. ## Historical context