On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 13:49:30 +0100 Maxime Buquet <[email protected]> wrote:
> I guess that's where we disagree. As a receiving implementation, why > would you have to display an "implementation detail" from another > client? You can't actually remove that implementation detail if you > feel it should not be displayed in your client, as you do not > understand it. As a receiving entity, I see three potential options upon receiving an arbitrary mention, regardless of its format: 1. Stylise mention with text as-is 2. Acquire user's name and replace the text with that 3. Attempt to parse the mention's text for post-processing Only the last one expects any level of understanding of the mention's text, but it is unclear to me why one would do that. Nonetheless, the recommendation at least gives confidence that you need only parse within the range, and never without. It also occurs to me that our ideas are not mutually opposed. I can just do like: 1. "Entities SHOULD strip processing characters before sending" 2. "If sent anyways, they SHOULD be included in the range" _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
