MSC4460: Extensible Events - Alternative unstable support#4460
MSC4460: Extensible Events - Alternative unstable support#4460turt2live wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
turt2live
changed the title
github-project-automation
Bot
moved this to Tracking for review
in Spec Core Team Workflow
turt2live
added
proposal
| All content blocks MUST additionally match their non-content block form. Events MUST have all | ||
| allowed and required content blocks if they use any content blocks. For example, an `m.image` | ||
| message type using the `m.text` content block *must* also have `m.file` and `m.image_details`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
all allowed and required content blocks
maybe i'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't that mean that a msgtype of m.image would also require an m.thumbnail? i don't think that's the idea though; it seems more sensible to require events to have all required content blocks plus any optional ones that have equivalents of the old format present. e.g. if there is a thumbnail_url and thumbnail_info, then there MUST also be a m.thumbnail content block with matching values.
| The original proposal gates using extensible events (meaning "content blocks") behind a room version | ||
| to ensure that clients are not exposed to events they might not be able to render. A previous draft | ||
| of the proposal tried to allow `m.room.message` and similar event types to use content blocks, though | ||
| that was later removed to discourage long-term use of `m.room.message`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so just to be clear, the idea is to retract and this issue and accept the risk?
| For all other event types, only unstable content block types are permitted. A room version is still | ||
| required to use stable content block types, as per MSC1767. Clients SHOULD NOT render `m.text`, | ||
| MSC3551 (files), MSC3552 (images), MSC3553 (videos), MSC3955 (notices), and MSC3927 (audio) content | ||
| blocks on non-`m.room.message` event types outside of an extensible events-supporting room version. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that is not what I can read from https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/main/proposals/1767-extensible-events.md#unstable-prefix.
I understand MSC1767 as "you can use unstable ID types in any room, or stable ID types in unstable rooms". Was this modified by another MSC? I also don't really see why this is necessary.
This also seems to decrease the value of this MSC for "extensible events forward compatibility"?
2 participants
Rendered