Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Mentions

> On 17 Mar 2026, at 15:23, Marvin W. via Standards <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2026-03-17 at 10:01 -0500, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
>> You mention people without any indication in the body that you
>> mentioned 
>> them in Slack?? How?
> 
> The other way round. I mention "@B" in a message to user A or a channel
> where B is not a member, and it will be a mention in markup without a
> notification of A. And with things like "@here" you are also notifying
> a lot of users without mentioning them in the traditional sense. (The
> @here also doesn't become clickable whereas a @B actually will be a
> link to the profile of B).

A variation of this also happens a lot on Discord where you have the split notions of mentioning a person with ping and mentioning a person without ping.

> 
> 
>> 
>> Right. Which is what the existing refrences XEP would already allow
>> (with the small, previously-discussed edit to not restrict the URI on
>> mentions to URIs of bare JIDs)
> 
> Except for all the other issues it has, like unclear interplay with
> XEP-0393/0394, lack of support for multi language messages, ... It also
> has the major downside of specifying a bunch of other things than
> mentions that are unfinished (have literal TODOs) and don't have any
> implementation experience and likely never will - meaning it can't be
> reasonably advanced to stable. The only way I see XEP-0372 advance is
> if everything except mention is removed - in which case we have to ask
> the question why it would still be called "references", if the only
> thing it does is "mentions”.

FWIW, 372 is used and deployed for things other than mentions, e.g. files and pubsub items. I do agree there’s a bunch in there that needs tidying up - there was a PR that tidied some things up, but did many things in one go, some of which I didn’t agree with.

/K



_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]