[Standards] MUC Mention Notifications

JC Brand lists at opkode.com
Wed Dec 30 17:04:19 UTC 2020



On 25.12.20 12:46, Marvin W wrote:

<snip>
> On 24.12.20 16:25, Matthew Wild wrote:
>> <notify> would be largely duplicating the semantics of XEP-0372
>> mentions.
> XEP-0372 (in its current version 0.4.0) does not specify any semantics
> for mentions at all and (according to its introduction) only "provides a
> mechanism for marking up a section of a message body with information
> about the target of the reference".

You can specify type="mention" for the <reference> (as in the example
in XEP-0372), to me that is semantic information.

> <notify> would only be about semantics and not about marking up in
> message body at all. At least with the current specification, there
> would be little to no overlap and definitely no duplication. Sure enough
> you could go without the <notify> element and create a XEP that adds
> semantic meaning to a XEP-0372 mention (which is what the suggested
> protoxep does). But I think splitting semantics and markup here makes a
> lot of sense.

I do see semantic overlap, hence the ambiguity I was mentioning in my
other reply to your first email in this thread.

> I am aware that some implementations may use XEP-0372 as an indicator to
> notify users in MUCs, but those implementations probably would also do
> this without XEP-0372 by matching body against the users nickname. Both
> is obviously unspecified behavior. <notify> is about adding a properly
> specified method to (in the long run) replace such unspecified behavior.

I'd say that very often the whole point of mentioning someone is so that
they get notified and not just for markup/display reasons.

It could be argued that adding type="mention" to a <reference> is
asking for the user to get notified.

I'm not against the idea of using <notify> but I'd like the ambiguities to
be cleared up first before updating the XEP to use it.

JC




More information about the Standards mailing list