Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
MSC4027: Propose method of specifying custom images in reactions #4027
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
MSC4027: Propose method of specifying custom images in reactions #4027
Changes from all commits
d4ff1c7
cdfe089
c86338a
75473cc
5424ea8
2ac5328
badc1ba
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mscbot concern Needs to be reviewed against other custom emoji/sticker MSCs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think in particular, this MSC sets up grammar for emoji shortcodes in Matrix, which we'll want to double-check aligns with whatever MSC defines sharable image packs.
@turt2live did you have anything else in mind? The rest is fairly reaction-specific IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shortcodes and feature as a whole are conflicting, imo. Specific impact to be determined once the remainder of the stack is looked at :)
(I plan to do this over the next 2ish weeks, barring other commitments - will hand over ~next week if things go poorly on my side)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mscbot concern Requiring two
:
characters in every shortcode string.Could you explain why we should encourage clients to put
:
s in every shortcode instead of restricting:
from being put in the string?I know we can't enforce it over federation, but the spec could at least enforce it in the Client-Server API. I think the occasional extra
:
appearing in clients is worth the bandwidth saving.For bridges, if they connect to a network that includes
:
on the ends of their custom emote shortcodes (or another character), then the bridge can just strip it, no?This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we enforce that shortcode's must begin and end with
:
? I think it'd be confusing to users if some clients started picking some other character.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added a "should" for that. It's not enforceable other than by convention.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A "must" snuck back in on line 33.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The type of the field is fairly easily enforceable by servers. We are already saying that they should verify the length. (Obviously if a rouge server doesn't validate these fields, we could have "bad" events come across federation.)
I think the question here is what part of the verification is "should" vs "must"? Right now, the servers "must" verify type and length of the shortcode, but the leading and trailing
:
is "should".Maybe everything should be "must" and force servers to verify all three things, but leave it up to the server implementation if they want to locally redact invalid events that come across federation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it would eliminate confusion in implementations for all three to be a MUST on the Client-Server API.
I would say yes, though I imagine most implementations would not redact such events - instead just allowing any UI bugs in the client that would surface.