Skip to content
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

MSC4193: Spoilers on Media #4193

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

everypizza1
Copy link

## Security considerations
None, hopefully.
## Unstable prefix
Until this is stable, clients should use `org.matrix.msc4193.spoiler` and `org.matrix.msc4193.spoiler.reason`.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

org.matrix is reserved for matrix.org, so you'll need to use something like your own domain for the unstable prefix.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've updated it to my Codeberg Pages site.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Usually it is fine to use org.matrix in a MSC if you'd like. Just include the MSC # in it.

@Ahwxorg
Copy link

Ahwxorg commented Sep 15, 2024

I really like this idea, just throwing that in here.

## Potential issues
A user with malicious intent may put something inappropriate in the reason field.
## Alternatives
One alternative is the [Spoilerinator](https://codeberg.org/cf/spoilerinator) tool.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would just clarify what this alternative does and the limitations of it.

From my brief look at it, it uses Matrix HTML to create an interactive/clickable dropdown to view the image.

The limitation of this compared to the MSC would be that not all clients implement HTML, and HTML on mobile clients isn't very good. Additionally this requires a multi-step process of copying the media URL / MXC URI and running this external tool, and most likely doesn't work in encrypted rooms.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added a note about the limitations.

@clokep clokep added proposal A matrix spec change proposal client-server Client-Server API kind:feature MSC for not-core and not-maintenance stuff needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. labels Sep 15, 2024
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Implementation requirements:

  • Client sending spoilers
  • Client respecting spoilers

This comment was marked as duplicate.

# MSC4193: Spoilers on Media
This proposal aims to enhance the protocol with more ways to make other users feel comfortable while using the protocol.
Background
Matrix includes a way to add a spoiler to text, which hides the text from visibility without explicit user interaction to show the hidden text. However, there is no official way to do this with images.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The existing spoilers work on all message types that support formatted_body and org.matrix.custom.html.

To send spoilers clients MUST use the formatted_body and therefore the org.matrix.custom.html format, described above. This makes spoilers valid on any msgtype which can support this format appropriately.

Since 1.10 images actually fall into that category, too, through their media captions.

So with this proposal it's now possible to have an image itself be behind a spoiler with its caption behind another spoiler. This made me wonder if we'd need some form of UI guidance on how to treat this situation? For instance, should the spoilers be revealed together or separately?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
client-server Client-Server API kind:feature MSC for not-core and not-maintenance stuff needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. proposal A matrix spec change proposal
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants