Moves deprecated stuff to the bottom

This commit is contained in:
Vitor Pamplona 2024-11-14 16:53:33 -05:00 committed by fiatjaf_
parent 8f112857a2
commit eca0a83d09

57
10.md
View File

@ -10,33 +10,6 @@ On "e" and "p" tags in Text Events (kind 1)
## Abstract ## Abstract
This NIP describes how to use "e" and "p" tags in text events, especially those that are replies to other text events. It helps clients thread the replies into a tree rooted at the original event. This NIP describes how to use "e" and "p" tags in text events, especially those that are replies to other text events. It helps clients thread the replies into a tree rooted at the original event.
## Positional "e" tags (DEPRECATED)
>This scheme is in common use; but should be considered deprecated.
`["e", <event-id>, <relay-url>]` as per NIP-01.
Where:
* `<event-id>` is the id of the event being referenced.
* `<relay-url>` is the URL of a recommended relay associated with the reference. Many clients treat this field as optional.
**The positions of the "e" tags within the event denote specific meanings as follows**:
* No "e" tag: <br>
This event is not a reply to, nor does it refer to, any other event.
* One "e" tag: <br>
`["e", <id>]`: The id of the event to which this event is a reply.
* Two "e" tags: `["e", <root-id>]`, `["e", <reply-id>]` <br>
`<root-id>` is the id of the event at the root of the reply chain. `<reply-id>` is the id of the article to which this event is a reply.
* Many "e" tags: `["e", <root-id>]` `["e", <mention-id>]`, ..., `["e", <reply-id>]`<br>
There may be any number of `<mention-ids>`. These are the ids of events which may, or may not be in the reply chain.
They are citing from this event. `root-id` and `reply-id` are as above.
>This scheme is deprecated because it creates ambiguities that are difficult, or impossible to resolve when an event references another but is not a reply.
## Marked "e" tags (PREFERRED) ## Marked "e" tags (PREFERRED)
`["e", <event-id>, <relay-url>, <marker>, <pubkey>]` `["e", <event-id>, <relay-url>, <marker>, <pubkey>]`
@ -62,3 +35,33 @@ When replying to a text event E the reply event's "p" tags should contain all of
Example: Given a text event authored by `a1` with "p" tags [`p1`, `p2`, `p3`] then the "p" tags of the reply should be [`a1`, `p1`, `p2`, `p3`] Example: Given a text event authored by `a1` with "p" tags [`p1`, `p2`, `p3`] then the "p" tags of the reply should be [`a1`, `p1`, `p2`, `p3`]
in no particular order. in no particular order.
## Deprecated Positional "e" tags
This scheme is not in common use anymore and is here just to keep backward compatibility with older events on the network.
Positional `e` tags are deprecated because they create ambiguities that are difficult, or impossible to resolve when an event references another but is not a reply.
They use simple `e` tags without any marker.
`["e", <event-id>, <relay-url>]` as per NIP-01.
Where:
* `<event-id>` is the id of the event being referenced.
* `<relay-url>` is the URL of a recommended relay associated with the reference. Many clients treat this field as optional.
**The positions of the "e" tags within the event denote specific meanings as follows**:
* No "e" tag: <br>
This event is not a reply to, nor does it refer to, any other event.
* One "e" tag: <br>
`["e", <id>]`: The id of the event to which this event is a reply.
* Two "e" tags: `["e", <root-id>]`, `["e", <reply-id>]` <br>
`<root-id>` is the id of the event at the root of the reply chain. `<reply-id>` is the id of the article to which this event is a reply.
* Many "e" tags: `["e", <root-id>]` `["e", <mention-id>]`, ..., `["e", <reply-id>]`<br>
There may be any number of `<mention-ids>`. These are the ids of events which may, or may not be in the reply chain.
They are citing from this event. `root-id` and `reply-id` are as above.