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

MSC3368: Message Content Tags #3368

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

0x1a8510f2
Copy link

@0x1a8510f2 0x1a8510f2 commented Aug 28, 2021

Initially I suggested most of this in a comment under MSC3286 but that MSC has been inactive for over a month now and I felt like my suggested changes were big enough to warrant a separate MSC.

Rendered

Signed-off-by: 0x1a8510f2 <admin@0x1a8510f2.space>

@0x1a8510f2 0x1a8510f2 changed the title [WIP] MSCXXXX: Message Content Tags [WIP] MSC3368: Message Content Tags Aug 28, 2021
@uhoreg uhoreg added client-server Client-Server API kind:feature MSC for not-core and not-maintenance stuff needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. proposal A matrix spec change proposal labels Aug 29, 2021
@0x1a8510f2
Copy link
Author

0x1a8510f2 commented Aug 31, 2021

This is probably up to a decent standard now so will mark as ready for review

@0x1a8510f2 0x1a8510f2 changed the title [WIP] MSC3368: Message Content Tags MSC3368: Message Content Tags Aug 31, 2021
@0x1a8510f2 0x1a8510f2 marked this pull request as ready for review August 31, 2021 14:26
The metadata object should (but does not have to) contain a `reason` key, mapping to a human-readable string value describing
why the content has this tag. This is to allow users to decide if they wish to see a message on an individual basis.

Other keys in the tag metadata object may be defined by future MSCs.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does it make sense to mention that implementations may add their own extensions using the org.example.foo syntax?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think that's implied anyway and I haven't seen it in any other MSCs as far as I remember. If you have an example of where that has been added to an MSC I'll be happy to add it.

@officialdakari
Copy link

Implemented in officialdakari/Extera

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
client-server Client-Server API kind:feature MSC for not-core and not-maintenance stuff needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. proposal A matrix spec change proposal
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants