Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Common Identifier Format is wrong about events #2103

Closed
aaronraimist opened this issue Jun 10, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #2104
Closed

Common Identifier Format is wrong about events #2103

aaronraimist opened this issue Jun 10, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #2104
Assignees
Labels
clarification An area where the spec could do with being more explicit meta Something that is not a spec change/request and is not related to the build tools

Comments

@aaronraimist
Copy link
Contributor

aaronraimist commented Jun 10, 2019

https://matrix.org/docs/spec/appendices.html#common-identifier-format

The Matrix protocol uses a common format to assign unique identifiers to a number of entities, including users, events and rooms. Each identifier takes the form:

&localpart:domain

but events don't use this format anymore.

@turt2live turt2live added clarification An area where the spec could do with being more explicit meta Something that is not a spec change/request and is not related to the build tools labels Jun 10, 2019
@turt2live turt2live added this to To add to spec in Matrix 1.0 workflow via automation Jun 10, 2019
@turt2live turt2live self-assigned this Jun 10, 2019
@turt2live turt2live moved this from To add to spec to In progress in Matrix 1.0 workflow Jun 10, 2019
turt2live added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 10, 2019
We already reference in the Event IDs section that the format depends on the room version, so we just need to link there.

Fixes #2103
Matrix 1.0 workflow automation moved this from In progress to Done Jun 11, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
clarification An area where the spec could do with being more explicit meta Something that is not a spec change/request and is not related to the build tools
Projects
No open projects
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants