rich1.0basantagoswami (npub1gm…tdaz2)https://nostr.now/npub1gmm2ehusvs35zgh6pq84m8hkj4ea0ygy3c9j2e3slzhjjce3kmns5tdaz2njumphttps://nostr.nowApproach 2 is leaner, but tags don't mean the same thing across event kinds, so using `r` tags might not be a good idea Some event kinds are always anchored to other things like comments. That's why NIP-22 was created. Here is an example of a comment on a URL from NIP-22 { "kind": 1111, "content": "Nice article!", "tags": [ // referencing the root url ["I", "https://abc.com/articles/1"], // the root "kind": for an url, the kind is its domain ["K", "https://abc.com"], // the parent reference (same as root for top-level comments) ["i", "https://abc.com/articles/1"], // the parent "kind": for an url, the kind is its domain ["k", "https://abc.com"] ] // other fields } Considering 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?