Tiptap comments, suggestions, and node-range surfaces

Purpose

Compile the Tiptap product-layer evidence that mattered to the overlay lane.

Strongest evidence

• comments are explicit product features: inline, document, sidebar, overlapping, API-managed
• suggestions are separate objects with ranges and replacement options
• overlapping suggestions are explicitly blocked because of ProseMirror decoration limitations
• focus and node-range helpers use node/range decoration channels directly

What this means

1. Comments and suggestions are not the same lane

Tiptap’s own product docs draw a hard line:

• comments are discussion/thread surfaces
• suggestions are review/change surfaces

That reinforces the Slate v2 split between:

• annotation/comment ownership
• transient overlay/review rendering

2. Product layers still inherit engine limits

The suggestions docs explicitly say overlapping suggestions cannot both render because of ProseMirror decoration limitations.

That is useful because it proves a product-layer system still needs honest engine boundaries instead of pretending every overlap case is free.

3. Node/range visuals are first-class enough to package

Focus and node-range helpers reinforce that node/range surfaces are real channels, not weird exceptions to a leaf-only model.

Take for Slate v2

• do not collapse comments, suggestions, and generic overlays into one API
• keep product-layer annotation systems explicit
• accept that some review/suggestion rendering constraints are engine-level, not just UI polish debt