27 Aug
2024
27 Aug
'24
6:09 a.m.
On Tuesday, 27 August 2024 13:35:15 GMT+2 Nicolas Cedilnik wrote:
I agree. However, I don't think we can have a non-messy fallback, as a single
<message> stanza may only contain a single reaction. The alternative is that
the users are completely unaware that something was communicated to them -
which is much worse than being messy. It's akin to messages being dropped,
IMO.
Is there any
reason why there is currently no fallback mechanism in
XEP-0444?
It gets rapidly messy in groups. One of the values of emoji reactions is
to improve signal to noise in large groups, and non-supporting clients
will have a ton of noise with fallbacks. There are also other
not-so-edge cases that are annoying to handle: reaction to attachments,
modification of reactions. That said, I think in 1:1 chat it would be quite
reasonable to include a
fallback, as the signal to noise ratio is not an issue there. Again,
XEP-0444 does not forbid it, it's a up to client (and gateways ;))
developers.
Maybe it's only my use case, but I often use MUCs containing just one other
person for content separation: for example a separate MUC for sending memes,
that can be easily muted, and another one for more urgent stuff.
Do we have any XEP to indicate that a message should be a silent one, i.e.,
that the client should not issue a notification? MS Teams has @silent
messages.
- MM
--
nicoco
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org