Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Mentions

On Sat, 14 Mar 2026 12:05:05 +0100
Maxime Buquet <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sorry this makes little sense to me. One should not break a SHOULD.
> There should be a compelling reason to do so. I'm trying to find
> a compelling reason for breaking this one (1.) but I'm out of ideas.

For individual user mentions, I imagine any compelling reason would be
pretty obscure, but for group mentions, I do think I would prefer to
send things like "@everyone", "@room", or "@here". Including the '@' in
those cases wouldn't interrupt implicit mentions AFAIK, while also
making it clear to users of unsupporting clients that it _was_ a
mention and not someone going "Here, check this out" normally.

> This looks reasonable (for supporting entities).
> 
> With the possibility of eating any natural language feature that isn't
> part of the nickname included in the range for option 2.
> 
> I guess that's alright if that's what the sending user meant. Sending
> clients should probably be careful in handling that, maybe a note
> there could help.

I'm not quite sure I understood this bit properly, sorry. What exactly
do you mean by "eating" here? What would the note be, specifically?
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]