Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Mentions

Stephen Paul Weber <[email protected]> Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:41:16 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.network.jabber.standards-jig
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Somebody claiming to be Snit Guckfung via Standards wrote:
>> XEP-0224 is pretty clear that the purpose is to send a message which
>> cases more of an attention-grabbing alert than the same message would
>> otherwise have received, and that how to get the user's attention is
>> up to the implementation. So if a client gets a message with this tag
>> it should alert the user in some way. In a MUC usually a message does
>> not notify the user at all, so any notification at all would be more
>> than usual. That is why it is appropriate for "room mentions", since
>> those don't mention anything but rather indicate that a messge should
>> alert users.
>
>Sure, I do think people at least agree that its meant to get the user's
>attention more than a message otherwise would, but its use beyond that
>isn't agreed upon even if we only consider what's been discussed in
>this thread.
>
>The use-case you've proposed is seemingly to BE the room mention, which
>users send directly.
>
>Another use-case is for the MUC service to use when a message contains
>a mention. When forwarding the stanza to a user that's been mentioned,
>it attaches the element.
>
>There was also the use-case where its meant to mark a message as
>important or urgent, entirely independently from mentions/notifications.

These all seem like the same case. A room "mention" notifies the user. A 
message containing a mention notifies the user. An urgent message notifies 
the user.

I'm not sure I think the second case is the thing to do, but it would work 
fine?

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

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)