Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Mentions

Thilo Molitor <[email protected]> Tue, 17 Mar 2026 17:11:14 +0100
Newsgroups	gmane.network.jabber.standards-jig
Message-ID	<6643347.DyV9NtORJm@laptop>
Hi,

just to throw my opinion in: I'm in favor of everything Marvin wrote and for 
Monal I would like to implement things exactly like Marvin suggested (2 XEPs, 
usage of XEP-0394 and XEP-0224 etc.).

-tmolitor



Am Dienstag, 17. März 2026, 08:28:35 CET schrieb Marvin W. via Standards:
> Hi,
> 
> There was already discussions on that matter during Summit and I made
> the point that I believe we have two entirely separate issues here that
> IMO should also be treated entirely independent (potentially using two
> XEPs):
> (a) Markup to the body, that has the purpose to indicate that a part of
> the body is referring to a user or a group of users
> (b) Some indication that the message should have some sort of priority
> to a user or a group of users
> 
> Here's why I believe they should be independent:
> - A client may decide to send both at the same time, but it doesn't
> need to. (a) can also happen in conversations that the referred user is
> not a part of and thus part (b) certainly can't apply. It is thus only
> logical that even if the referred user is in the same room, one should
> be able to send a message that does not indicate (b).
> - (a) is indicating to a specific instance of body, implying that in
> scenarios of multiple bodies (xml:lang, xhtml-im), there need to be
> multiple of such (a) indications, but the indication of (b) does not
> need to appear multiple times, as it is independent from the actual
> body.
> - The (b) indication might have some implication on servers (e.g. might
> receive priority for CSI when regular type=groupchat messages don't),
> (a) is entirely to be processed by clients.
> - When end-to-end encryption is used, it may be desirable to keep (b)
> unencrypted (so servers can process it), whereas (a) should always be
> encrypted when end-to-end encryption is used, as it may leak
> information about the message's plain text.
> 
> I think this gives a good idea of why I believe those are two separate
> things. The XEP proposal puts them into a single thing, but does
> acknowledge some of the things I mention:
> - A mention can happen without referring to a specific part of the
> body, effectively turning it into a (b) only indication
> - A mention can happen with <noping/>, effectively turning (b) off when
> (a) is used
> 
> Now here are problems I see with the proposed specification, directly
> stemming from trying to merge the two:
> - A mention can happen with <noping/> and without begin/end, indicating
> that a user/group is mentioned, which feels largely useless.
> - When multiple languages are used, there may be multiple <mention/>
> elements. What if they have conflicting <noping/> indications?
> 
> On top, there's another major issue somewhat caused by merging the two:
> The user's home server usually does not have an understanding of group
> membership details, hats and so on, meaning it can't give messages
> priority (e.g. for CSI) based on that in the proposed protocol.
> 
> So my proposal is to do two separate things for mention (which could
> reference each other):
> - A markup-only indication. This is meant to be processed by clients
> exclusively. I personally would prefer this being based on XEP-0394
> spans, as those already have some business logic that is relevant here
> (spans must not cross each other, spans cannot cross block level
> markup) that would need to somehow be codified if it was done
> indpendent of XEP-0394.
> - For notifications in MUCs, to solve the issue that the home server
> does not understand details like affiliation/hats, have a new protocol
> that allows a sender to indicate which group they want to notify and
> then have the MUC translate this into XEP-0224 attention elements when
> reflecting the message to applicable recipients.
> - For priority notifications in direct chats (if messages aren't
> notified by default), just use XEP-0224 directly.
> 
> This way we have a single standard for the receiving server/client to
> know that a message is important and should notify (XEP-0224). We have
> a single standard for markup related matters (XEP-0394). And we have a
> new standard to indicate to the MUC server they should notify specific
> recipients.
> 
> Marvin
> 
> On Tue, 2026-03-10 at 14:28 +0000, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
> > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
> > 
> > Title: Explicit Mentions
> > Abstract:
> > This specification defines a way to explicitly mention a person or
> > groups of people.
> > 
> > URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/explicit-mentions.html
> > 
> > The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this
> > proposal as an official XEP.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 488 B)