MSC: Extensible Events modification: State event handling

proposals/0000-modify-extensible-events-state-handling.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# MSC0000: Extensible Events modification: State event handling
+
+[MSC1767 (accepted; not merged)](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/1767) introduced
+a concept of Extensible Events to Matrix, with a specific recommendation that state events *not* be
+treated as extensible except on a case-by-case basis. During review of [MSC3765](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3765),
+it was thought that the recommendation may need to be changed - this MSC captures that thinking, which
+is similarly captured in [this comment](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3765#discussion_r1915778656)
+on MSC3765.
+
+## Proposal
+
+MSC1767 is modified to permit clients to use content blocks to render unknown state event types in
+rooms. Clients SHOULD render such events in a way where the user is not confused by the event being
+rendered. An example approach may be to add a small decoration to say "this message may appear differently
+to other users".
+
+## Potential issues
+
+Clients may render state events in a confusing way for users, allowing senders to 'trick' the user
+into believing something was said. For example, sending `m.room.topic` state events with `m.text` of
+`Alice has been promoted to Admin`. Per the proposal, clients should find a way to de-confuse the
+user, or otherwise handle unknown (state) event types more safely. Or, render specified event types
+and avoid the issue entirely 😇.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+The obvious one is the current text of MSC1767, as of writing:
+
+> Unknown state event types generally should not be parsed by clients. This is to prevent situations
+> where the sender masks a state change as some other, non-state, event. For example, even if a state
+> event has an `m.text` content block, it should not be treated as a room message.
+
+## Security considerations
+
+Implied by potential issues.
+
+## Unstable prefix
+
+While this proposal is not considered stable, clients should follow MSC1767's unstable prefix guidance.
+
+Clients are encouraged to experiment with UI/UX which de-confuses users.
+
+## Dependencies
+
+This MSC has no dependencies which aren't already accepted.

proposals/1767-extensible-events.md

@@ -253,9 +253,9 @@ allowed to do this. Such examples include MSC3381 Polls and MSC3245 Voice Messag
 
 ### State events
 
-Unknown state event types generally should not be parsed by clients. This is to prevent situations
-where the sender masks a state change as some other, non-state, event. For example, even
-if a state event has an `m.text` content block, it should not be treated as a room message.
+Clients should handle unknown state event types with care, aiming to avoid confusing the user. For
+example, if a state event has an `m.text` content block, it should be rendered either differently to
+normal message events or with a decoration to indicate that other users may be seeing something else.
 
 Note that state events MUST still make use of content blocks in applicable room versions, and that
 any top-level key in `content` is defined as a content block under this proposal. As such, this