Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
MSC4133: Extending User Profile API with Key:Value Pairs #4133
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
MSC4133: Extending User Profile API with Key:Value Pairs #4133
Changes from 14 commits
0546154
e274c6d
3e47109
3bb5666
454eeb4
39cd01a
2625544
be2b808
5695cbe
c0bc005
5283e4e
f469ebe
0b88d85
b37af65
d3e6fbf
c19fb90
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Wouldn't it make sense for the key to be
value
instead of the field's name?This would avoid potential future expansion clashing with existing keys (eg. a
privacy
field,rooms
, etc. etc.)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.
I'd far rather we maximise compatibility with current clients than a breaking change that requires all clients to change to update basic fields like name/picture.
The only way we could do that at the moment would be to add workarounds/exceptions for
displayname
andavatar_url
which seems like a backward step when this MSC aims to offer a clean way to expand the current set of profile fields.There's no reason this couldn't change in a future/extra MSC, which could investigate how extra metadata would be treated, but it could also just as easily add metadata keys (like "privacy" or "rooms" keys) while communicating the actual value under the name of the key.
I can imagine that being quite a contentious debate that could hold the MSC up for a while, when this one's main purpose is to get some basic profile field functionality out quickly while we wait for more advanced profile functionality (like "profile rooms") to be ironed out.
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.
I would love to see the same semantics here as in MSC4069, where a client can inhibit updating the profile info in rooms.
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.
(In addition, this would also allow users to override these profile values per room, say one's exploring their identity and wants to try different pronouns etc. etc. in a room with trusted friends, besides other use cases)