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

MSC3644: Extensible Events: Edits and replies #3644

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

turt2live
Copy link
Member

@turt2live turt2live commented Jan 14, 2022

Rendered

Dependencies

This MSC requires the following to pass (or likely pass) FCP before being able to be FCP'd itself:


Preview: https://pr3644--matrix-org-previews.netlify.app

@turt2live turt2live changed the title Extensible Events: Edits and replies MSC3644: Extensible Events: Edits and replies Jan 14, 2022
@turt2live turt2live marked this pull request as ready for review January 14, 2022 05:01
@turt2live turt2live added kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success 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 proposal-in-review labels Jan 14, 2022
Comment on lines +116 to +122
A downside of this system is that relation-requiring events, such as poll responses and reactions,
are not editable because the relation will be overridden. Other proposals, like
[MSC3051](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/3051), aim to change the relation structure
wholesale to account for these cases. For the purposes of extensible events, and this proposal, the
intention is that these relation-requiring events describe overload mechanics on their own. For
example, polls only take into consideration the most recent event while reactions effectively rely
upon redact & re-send approaches.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Another affected system is MSC3440: Threads. It defines an m.thread relation which would be overridden by edits here. It's somewhat questionable if removing m.new_content is the correct approach, but for the moment I'm eager to punt the relation conflict out to other MSCs like the one referenced in the proposal text.

external to this proposal.

Also as described, events can effectively change type under this system. This could have consequences
on systems like the [key verification framework](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.1/client-server-api/#key-verification-framework),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Eeeer, would this be an issue? Edits are about how to present an event to the user, the key verification says exactly which event type it needs when; it simply does not allow room for edits.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Well, clients should take care to not support edits on those events by accident :3

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"could" is the operating keyword - I haven't really looked into it beyond realizing it's a potential area where we don't want edits. To be explored in a future MSC, though.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success 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.

None yet

3 participants