> that post You too see the quoted posts? It seems like a "feature" of the client he is using.

Mine too, mine too

Hi, thank you for replying. It's actually relatively simple. Yes, the spec does contradict itself about how to quote a note. You are right. Some clients include both the "q" tag and the "e" tag with "mention" mark when quoting a note. I think, for now, that is the right choice. When posting a reply, there was an old standard without marks. The new standard, which should be used, does have marks. Clients should still support the old one when parsing a note. There is no ambiguity when writing a reply: the reply should contain two "e" tags: one with "root" mark pointing to the root and one with "reply" mark pointing to the parent, except when the parent is also the root: in that case only one tag with the "root" mark is included. The correct behavior is to not include other ancestors at all. To sum up, my suggestion is: - Assume some clients will use the mark semantic and some the positional semantic. Your client should parse both. - When writing a note, always use the mark semantic and assume other clients will parse it. The positional semantic is deprecated. - Only include parent and root as "e" tags in a reply, with corresponding marks. - Include, for now, both "q" tag and "e" tag with "mention" mark when another note is being quoted/mentioned. Never use either of these in any other case, especially not for an ancestor.

I don't think your electroencephalogram needed any help being flat, but ok.