{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"basantagoswami wrote","author_name":"basantagoswami (npub1gm…tdaz2)","author_url":"https://nostr.now/npub1gmm2ehusvs35zgh6pq84m8hkj4ea0ygy3c9j2e3slzhjjce3kmns5tdaz2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.now","html":"Approach 2 is leaner, but tags don't mean the same thing across event kinds, so using `r` tags might not be a good idea\n\nSome event kinds are always anchored to other things like comments. That's why NIP-22 was created. \n\nHere is an example of a comment on a URL from NIP-22\n\n{\n  \"kind\": 1111,\n  \"content\": \"Nice article!\",\n  \"tags\": [\n    // referencing the root url\n    [\"I\", \"https://abc.com/articles/1\"],\n    // the root \"kind\": for an url, the kind is its domain\n    [\"K\", \"https://abc.com\"],\n\n    // the parent reference (same as root for top-level comments)\n    [\"i\", \"https://abc.com/articles/1\"],\n    // the parent \"kind\": for an url, the kind is its domain\n    [\"k\", \"https://abc.com\"]\n  ]\n  // other fields\n}\n\nConsidering zap requests and receipts are also anchored to other events, maybe you can use the K, E, A, I, k, e, a, i tags with the zap event kinds?"}