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

MSC2557: Proposal to clarify spoilers #2557

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Mar 28, 2021
Merged

Conversation

turt2live
Copy link
Member

@turt2live turt2live commented May 19, 2020

Original MSC: #2010

Per the proposal process, MSC2010 has been modified to match this MSC.

Rendered

Original MSC: #2010

*Per the proposal process, MSC2010 has been modified to match this MSC.*
@turt2live turt2live added proposal-in-review proposal A matrix spec change proposal kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec labels May 19, 2020
@turt2live turt2live changed the title Proposal to clarify spoilers MSC2557: Proposal to clarify spoilers May 19, 2020
Copy link
Member

@uhoreg uhoreg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like reasonable clarifications.

proposals/2557-spoiler-clarifications.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Hubert Chathi <hubert@uhoreg.ca>
The recommended fallback format is unchanged.

Additionally, this proposal opens up spoilers to any HTML-supporting message types. Currently
this includes `m.text` (already included by MSC2010), `m.notice`, and `m.emote`.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

With #2241 that would also include m.key.verification.request

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No? It doesn't require HTML.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, it does it's just buried in the MSC. That's probably fine still - "don't be silly" clauses start to take effect in the spec.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It doesn't require it, but it is optional. Although, as you said "HTML-supporting message types" that would be covered, too

@turt2live
Copy link
Member Author

I'm not super convinced this needs an implementation proof given the limited complexity and obvious benefits it provides.

@mscbot fcp merge

@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Mar 22, 2021

Team member @turt2live has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged people:

Once at least 75% of reviewers approve (and there are no outstanding concerns), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for information about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@mscbot mscbot added disposition-merge proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of a majority of team members in order to enter the final comment period. and removed proposal-in-review labels Mar 22, 2021
@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 added this to Ready for FCP ticks in Spec Core Team Backlog Mar 22, 2021
@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Mar 23, 2021

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

@mscbot mscbot added final-comment-period This MSC has entered a final comment period in interest to approval, postpone, or delete in 5 days. and removed proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of a majority of team members in order to enter the final comment period. labels Mar 23, 2021
@richvdh richvdh moved this from Ready for FCP ticks to In FCP in Spec Core Team Backlog Mar 23, 2021
@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Mar 28, 2021

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

@mscbot mscbot added finished-final-comment-period and removed disposition-merge final-comment-period This MSC has entered a final comment period in interest to approval, postpone, or delete in 5 days. labels Mar 28, 2021
@turt2live turt2live merged commit 2672e63 into master Mar 28, 2021
@turt2live turt2live deleted the travis/msc/spoiler-fallback branch March 28, 2021 17:30
@turt2live turt2live added spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review and removed finished-final-comment-period labels Mar 28, 2021
@turt2live turt2live moved this from In FCP to Done to some definition in Spec Core Team Backlog Mar 28, 2021
turt2live added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 6, 2021
@turt2live turt2live self-assigned this Apr 6, 2021
@turt2live turt2live added merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! and removed spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review labels Apr 6, 2021
@turt2live
Copy link
Member Author

Merged 🎉

richvdh pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2021
richvdh pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2021
richvdh pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 27, 2021
richvdh pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 27, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! proposal A matrix spec change proposal
Projects
Spec Core Team Backlog
  
Done to some definition
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants