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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

MSC2701: Clarifying Content-Type usage in the media repo #2701

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 30, 2024
Merged

MSC2701: Clarifying Content-Type usage in the media repo #2701

merged 3 commits into from
Jan 30, 2024

Conversation

turt2live
Copy link
Member

@turt2live turt2live commented Jul 28, 2020 •
edited by tulir
Loading

Rendered

Implementations: None required - see "Unstable Prefix" section for details.

FCP tickyboxes

@turt2live turt2live added proposal-in-review proposal A matrix spec change proposal kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec labels Jul 28, 2020
@turt2live turt2live changed the title Proposal to clarify how Content-Type works with media MSC2701: Clarifying Content-Type usage in the media repo Jul 28, 2020
@aaronraimist aaronraimist mentioned this pull request Nov 29, 2020
Closed
@turt2live turt2live mentioned this pull request Dec 9, 2020
Closed
@turt2live turt2live added the needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. label Jun 8, 2021
@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Aug 3, 2021 •
edited
Loading

@turt2live: Given that this seems to be largely a statement of the status quo, why is it needs-implementation?

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Aug 3, 2021

this looks ready to go to me, and I think we should FCP it.

@richvdh richvdh added this to Awaiting initial idea feedback in Spec Core Team Backlog via automation Aug 3, 2021
@richvdh richvdh moved this from Awaiting initial idea feedback to Proposed for FCP readiness in Spec Core Team Backlog Aug 3, 2021
@turt2live
Copy link
Member Author

@turt2live: Given that this seems to be largely a statement of the status quo, why is it needs-implementation?

Largely because of the criteria when applying that label: Nothing in the PR description to say that it needs an implementation. This translates to it being on my todo list to figure out the status of it.

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Aug 3, 2021

I assert that it already has an implementation, and I propose FCP.

@mscbot fcp merge.

@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Aug 3, 2021

Unknown disposition 'merge.'.

@richvdh richvdh removed the needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. label Aug 3, 2021
@richvdh richvdh moved this from Proposed for FCP readiness to Ready for FCP ticks in Spec Core Team Backlog Aug 3, 2021
@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Aug 3, 2021

ohh wait, I seem to have jumped the gun here. Sorry!

@richvdh richvdh added the needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. label Aug 3, 2021
richvdh
richvdh reviewed Aug 3, 2021
View reviewed changes
proposals/2701-media-content-type.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
proposals/2701-media-content-type.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
proposals/2701-media-content-type.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@richvdh richvdh removed this from Ready for FCP ticks in Spec Core Team Backlog Aug 3, 2021
@aaronraimist aaronraimist mentioned this pull request Oct 11, 2021
Closed
turt2live and others added 2 commits December 15, 2023 22:54
@turt2live @richvdh
Apply suggestions from code review
184e54f 
Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
@turt2live
Modernize wording
630a352
@turt2live turt2live removed the needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. label Dec 16, 2023
@turt2live
Copy link
Member Author

I've updated this to match current behaviour, which also means no specific implementation is required. Sending it off for review:

@mscbot fcp merge

@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Dec 16, 2023 •
edited by ara4n
Loading

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 the proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of a majority of team members in order to enter the final comment period. label Dec 16, 2023
@turt2live turt2live added this to Ready for FCP ticks in Spec Core Team Backlog Dec 21, 2023
@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Jan 25, 2024

🔔 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 Jan 25, 2024
@turt2live turt2live moved this from Ready for FCP ticks to In FCP in Spec Core Team Backlog Jan 25, 2024
@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Jan 30, 2024

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 Jan 30, 2024
@turt2live turt2live merged commit 3fa9417 into old_master Jan 30, 2024
turt2live added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2024
@turt2live @richvdh
MSC2701: Clarifying Content-Type usage in the media repo (#2701)
c015c5b 
* Proposal to clarify how Content-Type works with media

* Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>

* Modernize wording

---------

Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
@turt2live turt2live deleted the travis/msc/media-contenttype branch January 30, 2024 00:43
@turt2live turt2live moved this from In FCP to Requires spec writing in Spec Core Team Backlog Jan 30, 2024
@turt2live turt2live added spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec and removed finished-final-comment-period labels Jan 30, 2024
@turt2live turt2live mentioned this pull request Mar 12, 2024
Closed
23 tasks
@turt2live turt2live mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2024
Draft
6 tasks
@turt2live
Copy link
Member Author

Spec PR: matrix-org/matrix-spec#1758

@turt2live turt2live self-assigned this Mar 19, 2024
Kladki
Kladki reviewed May 31, 2024
View reviewed changes
proposals/2701-media-content-type.md
Comment on lines +24 to +25
For `GET /download`, the server MUST return a `Content-Type` which is either exactly the same as the
original upload, or reasonably close. The bounds of "reasonable" are:
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know that this MSC was merged a while ago, but would it have made sense to also mandate a X-Content-Type-Options nosniff header as part of the response?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Kladki Could you open this question as a new issue on https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues? Then we can discuss and track it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 anoadragon453 left review comments

@richvdh richvdh richvdh left review comments

@Kladki Kladki Kladki left review comments

Assignees

@turt2live turt2live

Labels
kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec proposal A matrix spec change proposal spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec
Projects
Spec Core Team Backlog
Status: Requires spec writing
Spec Core Team Backlog
  
Requires spec writing
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
5 participants
@turt2live @richvdh @mscbot @anoadragon453 @Kladki