What is in my article:
As there is no NIP (yet) for this event kind, I see some possible improvements:
Use the bookmark URL value in the d tag so it can be used as a unique identifier for every client
Use the content field for the description value
Use the a tag for an addressable event following NIP-01: ["a", "39700:pubkey_of_author:", recommended_relay_url_optional]
Related: general comment on any URI (whether it’s a URL or something else like a book or a blockchain tx)
I definitely agree with the first 2, the 3rd I don't understand, the "a" tag could be added on subsequent (NIP-22) comments to the URL bookmark, and then it will include the "d" value, i.e. the URL.
That a tag always is confusing me..
For example when I follow NIP-23, kind 30023 events can have an a-tag too correct? If so, why not for other addressable events?
They don't have an a-tag generally, no. Only other events that refer to them.
