On Tuesday, 27 August 2024 13:35:15 GMT+2 Nicolas Cedilnik wrote: > > Is there any reason why there is currently no fallback mechanism in > > XEP-0444? > > It gets rapidly messy in groups. One of the values of emoji reactions is > to improve signal to noise in large groups, and non-supporting clients > will have a ton of noise with fallbacks. There are also other > not-so-edge cases that are annoying to handle: reaction to attachments, > modification of reactions. I agree. However, I don't think we can have a non-messy fallback, as a single <message> stanza may only contain a single reaction. The alternative is that the users are completely unaware that something was communicated to them - which is much worse than being messy. It's akin to messages being dropped, IMO.
> That said, I think in 1:1 chat it would be quite reasonable to include a > fallback, as the signal to noise ratio is not an issue there. Again, > XEP-0444 does not forbid it, it's a up to client (and gateways ;)) > developers. Maybe it's only my use case, but I often use MUCs containing just one other person for content separation: for example a separate MUC for sending memes, that can be easily muted, and another one for more urgent stuff. Do we have any XEP to indicate that a message should be a silent one, i.e., that the client should not issue a notification? MS Teams has @silent messages. - MM > > -- > nicoco > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
