Replying to Avatar Vitor Pamplona

Cordelorians post is cited in the message. That e is a quote. The other one doesn't have a mark, so it's a reply by the old rules. Maybe the issue is the presence of the first e tag.
04
சாரு-秋陽 2y ago

Thanks Vitor for checking🙏

I think it's because the NIP10 deprecated version says this:

Two "e" tags: ["e", ], ["e", ]

is the id of the event at the root of the reply chain. is the id of the article to which this event is a reply.

I think most clients have interpreted this as the second/final "e" tag is the event being replied to, irrespective of root, but not Amethyst. Sharing a snort screenshot of this reply for your reference.

I only wish I could've raised a PR instead of bothering you but it looked like that would take months 😔

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Vitor Pamplona 2y ago

Correct. But snort is wrong. This should not be a reply to the quoted message.

04
சாரு-秋陽 2y ago

Okay. But many clients implement NIP10 like that - Snort, Primal, Satellite & maybe Damus?

Also, checked on Amethyst, if I reply to a note mentioning another, the replied to note is in first "e" tag and the mention is 2nd. Is this how it's supposed to work?

In any case, since it looks like changes to any client will lead to breaking flow of threads of the old notes in some client, and this happens only in reply + note mentions, I should probably let it go (&pray NIP-27 & marked tags becomes commonplace)

Thanks for explaining & helping me understand Vitor!