Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Mentions

> 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.

Yes, but its the specific semantics that differ.

In the first, the Attention element _is_ the room mention. My
understanding is that Explicit Mentions isn't even used for room
mentions in this scenario. The user sends the element itself, and the
MUC just leaves it intact when forwarding to every member.

In the second case, the MUC, not the user, is attaching the element.
The user sends the mention, then the MUC attaches the notification
_only_ on the stanza being sent to the users being mentioned. It works
ALONGSIDE mentions, and is being sent by a different entity for more
purposes than just room mentions.

In the third case, it was less about notification and more about making
the message look different as the attention-grabbing mechanism. It was
likened to "important" messages in MS Teams. In this case, the element
has nothing to do with mentions, as its used for something entirely
different.

Then there's the use-case Thilo just mentioned, where they go into
"focus mode", which I assume might turn off normal mention notifications
as specified here. In that case, it seems like they want Attention to
be a way to forcefully notify someone regardless. This kind of
aggressive message is what I had interpreted the XEP as, as well, when
I first read it.

The former two mainly differ in whether they expect a mention alongside
the element, or whether it _is_ the mention. Meanwhile, the latter two
actively require mentions _not_ to use XEP-0224, so that they can use it
for some other purpose.
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]