> ProseMirror doesn't support distributed synchronisation so why do you ask? I wondered whether his quote from the article related to the implementation of dis

> ProseMirror doesn't support distributed synchronisation so why do you ask? I wondered whether his quote from the article related to the implementation of distributed OT in ShareJS, or just centralized OT. I always assumed he had said that of centralized OT. > Implementing OT consists of copying algorithms from academic papers If you extend them, you need to extend the proof as well. > New operations can be defined in terms of the primitives of insert, update, and delete Similar to vector spaces, adding a vector to the base that is orthogonal to all others can give you a much larger space. While in OT, every new primitive requires an exponentially growing number of proofs, you can avoid that with a simpler algorithm. Sure, OT has text figured out (although it took some time to fix the details). However, I am personally interested in more complex data structures such as matrices (bitmap) and trees (vector graphics, rich text), where you want to maintain the meaning of, say, the rotation of a layer. Even with sound, which can be kind of seen like a list, using the same primitives as with text would yield strange results. It is harder to tweak an OT algorithm to go closer to the intention of the user (which I do heavily in Canop for text) as it is completely independent from the proof that is needed to maintain convergence. To me, adding collaboration to an operation-based editor should be as simple as adding an undo/redo system. I absolutely think that OT was a phenomenal achievement, but in a couple of years, I hope it won't be the go-to choice.