Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Mentions

Thanks for your reply (and Kevin's one),

yes it made it in time.

Le mardi 31 mars 2026, 15:53:02 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Snit Guckfung 
via Standards a écrit :

> Yes, there is a redundancy at the moment. The original idea here was
> that this would be submitted _after_ a PR that removes mentions from
> XEP-0372.
>
> [SNIP]
> 
> But, again, none of these options are compatible with mentions as
> already specified in XEP-0372, anyways, as all of these example assume
> mentions were updated to be at all extensible.

I'm a bit short in time to reply to this part in details, I'll need more time 
to check this.

> > I've thought a bit about it, and I actually think that both use cases
> > are necessary:
> > 
> > - explicit mentions are more efficient for people already in the MUC,
> > as there is not extra message, and they can specify who is mentioned.
> > 
> > - I think that it's necessary to be able to mention people not in the
> > room, or sort of "registered" to a room, but not present at the time
> > of the mention. In this case, the MUC service could use XEP-0372 to
> > mention them. Not being physically present in a room and receiving
> > mention can have huge benefits when following large room.
> 
> I still don't really understand what you're getting at, here. Does
> anything in the current draft suggest you can't do this? Nothing stops
> you from mentioning anyone with a known Occupant ID or JID, whether or
> not they're currently present.

With Explicit Mention, you have to be in the room to see the notification (as 
it's sent to the room itself), right?

My point is if you are in a huge room with lot of traffic, but not willing to 
see every single message: you are interested in going there from time to time, 
and being notified if somebody mentions you. In this case, you need to have the 
mention directly addressed to you, not to the room. Then you can join and 
retrieve messages of interest with MAM.

Another use case is mentioning somebody who is not an occupant of a room. But 
we may or may not want to handle this.

> 
> > - XEP-0372 can also be used with Pubsub, which is, with my client
> > developer hat, a very important feature to me.
> 
> As I said before, I basically have no clue how PubSub works at the
> moment, so I didn't even consider it initially. I'm not sure I
> understand the use-case, but I would be more than happy for it to be
> added, preferably by someone who actually knows what they need from
> such a feature. Otherwise, I can look into it later down the line.

For now, the important part is to have a way to notify somebody that they are 
mentioned in a blog, forum, event or whatever. This is possible with XEP-0372, 
the pubsub item URI is used. Referencing with begin/end the content is not 
possible at the moment though (as we would need a way to specify which element 
is used).

> 
> > So there is room for both. However, there should not be 2 different
> > ways of marking the location of the mention, it should use XEP-0372
> > (maybe an updated version of it) and made compatible with XEP-0394
> > (without making XEP-0394 mandatory).
> 
> I've seen several people advocate for splitting markup and notification
> format, which seems perfectly reasonable. One thing I don't get,
> though, is why a pure markup format wouldn't just use the XEP that is
> specifically designed for markup formats. I figured maybe it'd be an
> issue that XHTML-IM and Markup would both have their own ways of
> marking up mentions, but that's seemingly never been a problem for
> literally everything else they do redundantly, so I assume there's
> something else that I'm missing here. And regardless, if the markup and
> notification aspects are split, then even clients which don't support
> Markup would still get notified. 

IIRC Markup has been done after XHTML-IM has been deprecated (or around this 
time at least). It shouldn't be taken into account anymore (except if it comes 
back to life as requested by some people, but that's another story).

I'm not sure to understand your point here. Markup would need an (probably 
short) extension to explain that something is a mention.


> Sorry about taking so long to respond. Hopefully this response makes it
> in time :)

No worries, we're all busy after all. It made it in time, thanks.

Best,
Goffi

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEsNZvWyEnjW9SVudbKqmcu6xuKwwFAmnL6JYACgkQKqmcu6xu
Kwy4/ggArqIq5e4vSR2b+rJEjh4D7ZBxwXsjoQRm0ZieS7gYFCMMZSHctcrdtrsH
8Py1G/woxrScc1FvEXaSLzYsqS2gahEtkN4cO8cdMzVc7ZgQ1p3xLqN7sqBpYDQr
ZZZsdvP19p+kUTqrwntnQNsPIF558VA7J38gE1JfYhOztILsfTUF1NtqbErX5gru
PsBkVhyY3LElLrMBXCHI2Rf+3iNmfqPYGESAMuKmcrnsjcUQbk1sdXyZvl1ywJfG
Uh480dyJUUAYtJbaxJ/tPFGhrJ3zE+P1zetw/c2UynT9RoXpx6tILWjgiqMSgX2q
KUarx0UtV9z2XQCV6CaC9YgD20N4lg==
=MrvB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----