Skip to content

MSC3892: Custom Emotes with Encryption#3892

Open
nmscode wants to merge 22 commits into
matrix-org:mainfrom
nmscode:emotes
Open

MSC3892: Custom Emotes with Encryption#3892
nmscode wants to merge 22 commits into
matrix-org:mainfrom
nmscode:emotes

Conversation

@nmscode

@nmscode nmscode commented Sep 14, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Rendered

Related MSCs: MSC2545 and MSC1951

Implementation PRs

Element web: matrix-org/matrix-react-sdk#9240

Hosted Implementation:

https://pr9240--matrix-react-sdk.netlify.app/

Implemented but not PR yet

Element android: https://github.com/nmscode/element-android

@nmscode nmscode changed the title MSCXXX: Custom Emotes with Encryption MSC3892: Custom Emotes with Encryption Sep 14, 2022
@nmscode nmscode marked this pull request as ready for review September 14, 2022 23:22
Comment thread proposals/3892-custom-emotes-with-encryption.md
@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 added proposal A matrix spec change proposal. Process state. A-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. labels Sep 15, 2022
Comment thread proposals/3892-custom-emotes-with-encryption.md
@anoadragon453

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I've added a needs-implementation label as part of the typical "new MSC" flow. I have yet to look at the linked implementation to see if it accurately reflects the MSC.

Comment thread proposals/3892-custom-emotes-with-encryption.md Outdated
Comment thread proposals/3892-custom-emotes-with-encryption.md Outdated
Comment thread proposals/3892-custom-emotes-with-encryption.md Outdated
@turt2live

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

It's been mentioned OOB that this has an implementation and so should be safe to remove the needs-implementation label, however I believe that we're not quite there yet. It's great to see that this has active implementations in Element, though for a feature of this size, scale, and importance it's more valuable to have several clients adopt the MSC as an implicit show of support for the technical direction. Specifically, we'd want to see clients with implementation in front of users for enough time to reveal any usability issues.

For clarity, this does not need to be done in Element either. Element can serve as one of the implementations (if adopted), but generally would be a small percentage of the overall consideration.

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

Labels

A-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. Process state.

Projects

No open projects
Status: Scheduled - v1.10

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants