-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 385
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
MSC3765: Rich text in room topics #3765
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 17 commits
9b914c6
06d315d
09c7014
1d0031a
3b572e7
6270109
af184dd
aa373d1
ea93852
a6b1555
95fb38a
f915cc4
385bf0b
bb726db
1b4682e
d42f0e3
fda22d8
ac5c6fc
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ | ||||||||||
# MSC3765: Rich text in room topics | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Problem | ||||||||||
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Topics are a central piece of room meta data and usually made easily | ||||||||||
accessible to room members in clients. As a result, room administrators | ||||||||||
often extend the use of topics to collect helpful peripheral information | ||||||||||
that is related to the room’s purpose. Most commonly these are links to | ||||||||||
external resources. At the moment, topics are limited to [plain text] | ||||||||||
which, depending on the number and length of URLs and other content, | ||||||||||
easily gets inconvenient to consume and calls for richer text formatting | ||||||||||
options. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Proposal | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Drawing from extensible events as described in [MSC1767], a new content | ||||||||||
block `m.topic` is defined, which wraps an `m.text` content block that | ||||||||||
allows representing the room topic in different mime types. In current | ||||||||||
room versions, this content block is added to the content of [`m.room.topic`] | ||||||||||
events as shown below[^1]. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
```json5 | ||||||||||
{ | ||||||||||
"type": "m.room.topic", | ||||||||||
"state_key": "", | ||||||||||
"content": { | ||||||||||
"m.topic": { | ||||||||||
"m.text": [{ | ||||||||||
"body": "All about **pizza** | [Recipes](https://recipes.pizza.net)" | ||||||||||
}, { | ||||||||||
"mimetype": "text/html", | ||||||||||
"body": "All about <b>pizza</b> | <a href=\"https://recipes.pizza.net\">Recipes</a>" | ||||||||||
}] | ||||||||||
Comment on lines
+28
to
+33
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Aren't these the wrong way round? According to MSC1767, the first supported representation should be used, so nobody will ever use the html representation. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. (clients can also optimize and pick a preferred represenation, but indeed the preference should be to order them. I remain unconvinced that MSC1767 picked the right order here though, because everyone (including me) keeps putting plaintext first) |
||||||||||
}, | ||||||||||
"topic": "All about **pizza** | [Recipes](https://recipes.pizza.net)" | ||||||||||
}, | ||||||||||
... | ||||||||||
} | ||||||||||
``` | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Details of how `m.text` works may be found in [MSC1767] and are not | ||||||||||
repeated here. | ||||||||||
Comment on lines
+41
to
+42
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I hadn't really expected |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The wrapping `m.topic` content block is similar to `m.caption` for file | ||||||||||
uploads as defined in [MSC3551]. It avoids clients accidentally rendering | ||||||||||
the topic state event as a room message. | ||||||||||
Comment on lines
+45
to
+46
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this actually necessary? It seems to me that the reason for This might be a good thing to do anyway, for consistency for example, but I'm unconvinced this paragraph captures a good reason for it. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The extra wrapping block was based off of @turt2live's comment from an earlier review. I don't feel strongly either way but am curious what Travis thinks. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I tripped over this too when reviewing it just now. My initial reaction was the same as richvdh's: state events don't get rendered as fallbacks, plus clients know to special-case topics already - plus the contents of the topic is semantically a top-level 'm.text' (unlike m.caption, which is effectively describing a nested event). If topics actually required some more custom topic-specific datatype (e.g. The only argument I can see for it is consistency with m.caption and other places where you might want to explicitly say "don't fall back to displaying m.text if you don't recognise the event type. even if it's a state event". Or possibly futureproofing for additional topic-specific keys we just haven't thought of yet. If it were me, I'd probably go ahead without the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. In the absence of dispute so far, I have opened #4251 to remove the wrapping |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
It is recommended that clients always include a plain text variant when | ||||||||||
richvdh marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
sending `m.topic` events. This prevents bad UX in situations where a plain | ||||||||||
richvdh marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
text topic is sufficient such as the public rooms directory. | ||||||||||
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Additionally, clients should duplicate the plain text topic into the existing | ||||||||||
`topic` field for backwards compatibility with clients that don't support | ||||||||||
`m.topic` yet. This also helps prevent inconsistencies since such clients | ||||||||||
are likely to delete the `m.topic` content block when updating `m.room.topic` | ||||||||||
themselves. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
In order to prevent formatting abuse in room topics, clients are | ||||||||||
encouraged to limit the length of topics during both entry and display, | ||||||||||
for instance, by capping the number of displayed lines. Additionally, | ||||||||||
clients should ignore things like headings and enumerations (or format them | ||||||||||
as regular text). A future MSC may introduce a mechanism to capture extended | ||||||||||
multiline details that are not suitable for room topics in a separate field | ||||||||||
or event type. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
On the server side, any logic that currently operates on the `topic` field is | ||||||||||
updated to use the `m.topic` content block instead. | ||||||||||
Comment on lines
+66
to
+67
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Am I right in understanding that the next four paragraphs are examples of this change? If so, it would be good to make that a little clearer:
Suggested change
... and make the following paragraphs bullet points. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It's actually meant to be a conclusive list. I hope I didn't miss anything. Maybe ending with a colon (without "For example") and making the next paragraphs bullets would be clearer? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. yup, sgtm There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Have captured it into https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3765/files#r1890019768 which I'll need you to push the button on once more. Sorry for the hassle. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
In [`/_matrix/client/v3/createRoom`], the `topic` parameter causes `m.room.topic` | ||||||||||
to be written with a `text/plain` mimetype in `m.topic`. If at the same time an | ||||||||||
richvdh marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
`m.room.topic` event is supplied in `initial_state`, it is overwritten entirely. | ||||||||||
A future MSC may generalize the `topic` parameter to allow specifying other mime | ||||||||||
types without `initial_state`. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
In [`GET /_matrix/client/v3/publicRooms`], [`GET /_matrix/federation/v1/publicRooms`] | ||||||||||
and their `POST` siblings, the `topic` response field is read from the | ||||||||||
richvdh marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
`text/plain` mimetype of `m.topic` if it exists or omitted otherwise. | ||||||||||
A plain text topic is sufficient here because this data is commonly | ||||||||||
only displayed to users that are *not* a member of the room yet. These | ||||||||||
users don't commonly have the same need for rich room topics as users | ||||||||||
who already reside in the room. A future MSC may update these endpoints | ||||||||||
to support rich text topics. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The same logic is applied to [`/_matrix/client/v1/rooms/{roomId}/hierarchy`] | ||||||||||
and [`/_matrix/federation/v1/hierarchy/{roomId}`]. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
In [server side search], the `room_events` category is expanded to search | ||||||||||
over the `m.text` content block of `m.room.topic` events. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Potential issues | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
None. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Alternatives | ||||||||||
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The combination of `format` and `formatted_body` currently utilised to | ||||||||||
enable HTML in `m.room.message` events could be generalised to | ||||||||||
`m.room.topic` events. However, this would only allow for a single | ||||||||||
format in addition to plain text and is a weaker form of reuse than | ||||||||||
described in the introductory section of [MSC1767]. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Security considerations | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Allowing HTML in room topics is subject to the same security | ||||||||||
considerations that apply to HTML in room messages. In particular, | ||||||||||
topics are already included in the content that clients should [sanitise] | ||||||||||
for unsafe HTML. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Unstable prefix | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
While this MSC is not considered stable, `m.topic` should be referred to | ||||||||||
as `org.matrix.msc3765.topic`. Note that extensible events and content | ||||||||||
blocks might have their own prefixing requirements. | ||||||||||
Comment on lines
+112
to
+113
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't really know what this means, as it pertains to this MSC? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
[^1]: A future MSC may discuss how to adopt the `m.topic` content block in | ||||||||||
new room versions which support extensible events. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
[plain text]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.12/client-server-api/#mroomtopic | ||||||||||
[MSC1767]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/1767 | ||||||||||
[MSC3551]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3551 | ||||||||||
[sanitise]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.12/client-server-api/#security-considerations | ||||||||||
[server side search]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.12/client-server-api/#server-side-search | ||||||||||
[`m.room.topic`]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.12/client-server-api/#mroomtopic | ||||||||||
[`/_matrix/client/v1/rooms/{roomId}/hierarchy`]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.12/client-server-api/#get_matrixclientv1roomsroomidhierarchy | ||||||||||
[`/_matrix/client/v3/createRoom`]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.12/client-server-api/#post_matrixclientv3createroom | ||||||||||
[`/_matrix/federation/v1/hierarchy/{roomId}`]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.12/server-server-api/#get_matrixfederationv1hierarchyroomid | ||||||||||
[`GET /_matrix/client/v3/publicRooms`]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.12/client-server-api/#get_matrixclientv3publicrooms | ||||||||||
[`GET /_matrix/federation/v1/publicRooms`]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.12/server-server-api/#get_matrixfederationv1publicrooms |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@alphapapa says:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Johennes replies: