Skip to content

MSC4011: Thumbnail media negotiation - #4011

Draft
clokep wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
clokep/thumbnail-media-negotiation
Draft

MSC4011: Thumbnail media negotiation#4011
clokep wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
clokep/thumbnail-media-negotiation

Conversation

@clokep

@clokep clokep commented May 4, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@turt2live turt2live added proposal A matrix spec change proposal. Process state. A-Client Server Client-Server API kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. labels May 5, 2023
be unable to cope with actually receiving different types of media. This seems
unlikely and would be up-to clients to fix.

## Alternatives

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

MSC2700 also discusses thumbnail requirements. MSC2705 also mentions requirements, though in different context.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! I hadn't had a chance yet to fully search for alternatives. 👍

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

MSC2705 has now dropped its content type requirements, though MSC2702 imposes some strong recommendations (should be compatible with this MSC).

I'm closing MSC2700 in favour of this MSC.

Comment thread proposals/4011-thumbnail-media-negotiation.md Outdated

### Impact on bridges

???

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There stands to be a reasonable improvement for bridges, in that we could start requesting more compact formats when bridging images/videos etc to external networks. For instance, we could convert images to webp upon bridging to Discord if we wanted to, rather than serving the current files.

Bridges stand to benefit in about the same way as clients, albeit possibly unless the remote client limits our upload sizes it's probably not such a huge concern

Co-authored-by: Hubert Chathi <hubertc@matrix.org>
@turt2live

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@clokep @Half-Shot : as authors, what's keeping this in draft? It feels ready for broader review/implementation.

@clokep

clokep commented Dec 16, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@clokep @Half-Shot : as authors, what's keeping this in draft? It feels ready for broader review/implementation.

I think I was hoping @Half-Shot could fill in the impact on bridges section. (I see he left a comment though -- probably just needs to be converted to prose?)

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:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec 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

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Need to explicitly spell out what media formats are supported

4 participants