31 Mar
2026
31 Mar
'26
1:21 p.m.
With Explicit Mention, you have to be in the room to
see the
notification (as it's sent to the room itself), right?
My point is if you are in a huge room with lot of traffic, but not
willing to see every single message: you are interested in going
there from time to time, and being notified if somebody mentions you.
In this case, you need to have the mention directly addressed to you,
not to the room. Then you can join and retrieve messages of interest
with MAM.
Another use case is mentioning somebody who is not an occupant of a
room. But we may or may not want to handle this.
Ah, I see now. Yes, this would be useful functionality to have. I'm
generally either always in a room or never in it, so I hadn't considered
the case where someone only pops into rooms selectively.
Could this be achieved with the MUC service sending something like
XEP-224 in a message to you, or does that also only work if you're
currently in the room? Otherwise, what exactly would this look like?
- XEP-0372 can also be used with Pubsub, which is,
with my client
developer hat, a very important feature to me.
As I said before, I basically have no clue how PubSub works at the
moment, so I didn't even consider it initially. I'm not sure I
understand the use-case, but I would be more than happy for it to be
added, preferably by someone who actually knows what they need from
such a feature. Otherwise, I can look into it later down the line. IIRC Markup has been done after XHTML-IM has been
deprecated (or
around this time at least). It shouldn't be taken into account
anymore (except if it comes back to life as requested by some people,
but that's another story).
XHTML-IM is deprecated, but it seems people still intend to continue
using it for various purposes, so it seems off to disregard it
entirely. Regardless, I was using XHTML-IM as a stand-in for any markup
format that isn't XEP-0394, be it XHTML-IM, XEP-0393, or some future
XEP or proprietary format. I do the same in the following section, as
well.
I'm not sure to understand your point here. Markup
would need an
(probably short) extension to explain that something is a mention.
My point is that I don't get why we'd make a markup format which is
compatible with, and honestly just reinvents, XEP-0394, rather than just
using XEP-0394 itself.
The only explanation I could come up with is that some people don't
want to implement XEP-0394, instead prefering some other markup format,
such as XHTML-IM. However, the way mentions are currently marked up is
an exact replica of XEP-0394, so I can't see an XHTML-IM user's
objections to XEP-0394 not also applying to mentions.
Markup is meant to be purely aesthetic, which is why all of the actual
functionality would be going in a separate proposal, no? If so, then
there's no real loss in not supporting the markup format, and if that's
the case, then why shouldn't we just use XEP-0394?
Since there's no real loss in not supporting XEP-0394 mention markup,
there'd be no loss if an XHTML-IM enthusiast decided they wanted to
specify a format which relies on XHTML-IM, instead. Both formats could
coexist, because, again, all actual functionality is in a completely
separate document that'd be supported regardless.
One of the first responses to the proposal on this list has an example
of what XHTML-IM markup for mentions could look like, and Marvin's
recent response shows possible XEP-0394 markup.
I can't seem to word this in a way I find satisfactory, so hopefully
this explanation makes sense :)