On 2026/03/11, snit via Standards wrote: > This was something I'd meant to include in the original proposal, and have > added to my current working draft. Special characters like '@' MAY be sent in > the original message, perhaps to show unsupporting clients that this was a > mention. But implementations SHOULD include such characters within the range > covered by the mention, so that both "user" and "@user" mentions can be > formatted the same way. I haven't special-cased any characters in particular, > as maybe rooms will use '#', or a different client might format it as "user," > to look similar to existing clients. I hope that makes sense.
Please don't. Really don't clutter XMPP with yet another special-cased character. We have XML for that already. The "@", or any other character for that matter, can be used client-side and stripped when being sent. It's easy enough to come with UX to handle this. Non-supporting clients won't support "@" any more than they support this specification. It actually hurts these clients more as they may not match on the special char and thus miss the mention entirely (for example matching on the nick as a lone word, not part of another word or the like). _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
