Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Mentions

> 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.

Ah, I see now. Yes, this would be useful functionality to have. I'm
generally either always in a room or never in it, so I hadn't considered
the case where someone only pops into rooms selectively.

Could this be achieved with the MUC service sending something like
XEP-224 in a message to you, or does that also only work if you're
currently in the room? Otherwise, what exactly would this look like?

> > > - 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).

What exactly would the logistics of this be? Are the references /
mentions attached to the blog post itself? How would the mentioned user
get notified? Is it just on the things they're subscribed to?

> 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).

XHTML-IM is deprecated, but it seems people still intend to continue
using it for various purposes, so it seems off to disregard it
entirely. Regardless, I was using XHTML-IM as a stand-in for any markup
format that isn't XEP-0394, be it XHTML-IM, XEP-0393, or some future
XEP or proprietary format. I do the same in the following section, as
well.

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

My point is that I don't get why we'd make a markup format which is
compatible with, and honestly just reinvents, XEP-0394, rather than just
using XEP-0394 itself.

The only explanation I could come up with is that some people don't
want to implement XEP-0394, instead prefering some other markup format,
such as XHTML-IM. However, the way mentions are currently marked up is
an exact replica of XEP-0394, so I can't see an XHTML-IM user's
objections to XEP-0394 not also applying to mentions.

Markup is meant to be purely aesthetic, which is why all of the actual
functionality would be going in a separate proposal, no? If so, then
there's no real loss in not supporting the markup format, and if that's
the case, then why shouldn't we just use XEP-0394? 

Since there's no real loss in not supporting XEP-0394 mention markup,
there'd be no loss if an XHTML-IM enthusiast decided they wanted to
specify a format which relies on XHTML-IM, instead. Both formats could
coexist, because, again, all actual functionality is in a completely
separate document that'd be supported regardless.

One of the first responses to the proposal on this list has an example
of what XHTML-IM markup for mentions could look like, and Marvin's
recent response shows possible XEP-0394 markup.

I can't seem to word this in a way I find satisfactory, so hopefully
this explanation makes sense :)
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]