Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Mentions

> Why would there be both type and kind? These seem redundant. A
> "mention" of a group/hat is a fundamentally different thing than a
> mention, belongs in its own XEP, and certainly deserves it's own type
> or possibly own syntax.

For one, I'm of the opinion that its fundamentally the same thing to a
user regardless of if I'm mentioning one or many people.

It _could_ get away with just having whole new namespaces
for every mention type in the 'type' attribute, but I'm not a fan of
that. I'd prefer if an implementation is able to receive unknown mention
types and actually know that they're mentions, which I can't do if we
forego the 'kind' attribute and use new namespaces in 'type' for any
extensions.

Even if my client doesn't understand who the mention targets, it can
still show it in the UI like any other mention, and messages might come
with a button to show all of the attached mentions, which can just fall
back to showing the target URI if it doesn't know what it is.

Servers can also have more flexible mention-related rules if its able
to tell when something is a mention, even if it doesn't know who got
mentioned.

> >Because room mentions don't even have a target URI  
> 
> By room mentions you mean attention XEP?

No, it seems clear to me that Attention isn't the right tool for room
mentions. It'd be inconsistent with every other mention type defined,
and actively goes against what people want for mentions.

For example, everyone agreed that there's no use-case for invisible
mentions, and that 'begin'/'end' should be required. Yet, Attention is
literally only capable of invisible mentions.

Not to say there isn't a place for it, just that this isn't it. Its
been suggested that the MUC service could attach Attention elements
when sending a message stanza to a user that has been mentioned. This
would be the same for all mention types, whether its room, or
individual, role/affiliation, hats, or anything else the MUC
understands.

But even then, I've also gotten feedback that people think Attention is
the wrong tool for this use-case as well. It'd depend on what we want
to go for when the notification stuff splits off into its own XEP, I
guess.
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]