Skip to content

MSC4481: Non-sigil matrix.to#4481

Open
HarHarLinks wants to merge 5 commits into
matrix-org:mainfrom
HarHarLinks:HarHarLinks/matrix.to-encoding-issue
Open

MSC4481: Non-sigil matrix.to#4481
HarHarLinks wants to merge 5 commits into
matrix-org:mainfrom
HarHarLinks:HarHarLinks/matrix.to-encoding-issue

Conversation

@HarHarLinks

@HarHarLinks HarHarLinks commented May 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rendered

I am at the time of writing employed by Nordeck, Matrix community member, and Member of The Matrix.org Foundation Governing Board. This proposal is written and published with my role as a community member at Matrix Community Summit 2026.

Implementations:

Signed-off-by: HarHarLinks <2803622+HarHarLinks@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: HarHarLinks <2803622+HarHarLinks@users.noreply.github.com>
@turt2live turt2live changed the title propose non-sigil matrix.to MSC4481: Non-sigil matrix.to May 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Implementation requirements:

  • Client (parsing)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

please clarify if matrix-org/matrix.to#410 is sufficient as a parsing implementation :)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was expecting a fuller Matrix client doing the parsing.

@turt2live turt2live added proposal A matrix spec change proposal. Process state. A-Client Server Client-Server API kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. labels May 21, 2026

## Potential issues

Needs to be implemented in <https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix.to/> first to ensure fallback support.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There's a good chance that a client encountering one of this proposal's new URIs will break too. Testing will be necessary, especially to ensure backwards compatibility.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IMO we shouldn't have this syntax hit clients at all, except maybe when a user manually sends a link as plain text.

This would be a good time to deprecate using matrix.to links and forbid this new syntax entirely in user and room mentions

@HarHarLinks HarHarLinks May 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  • Element Desktop Nightly version: 2026053001: opens the link in a browser, does not pillify it
  • Nheko 0.12.1-90ff9c6f: opens the link in a browser, generally no pill support
  • fractal 13: opens the link in a browser, does not pillify it
  • SchildiNext 0.11.2-test3 (based on Element X 26.05.1): opens the link in a browser, does not pillify it
  • Element X 26.05.1: opens the link in a browser, does not pillify it
  • Fluffychat 2.6.0: fails to handle the link
  • Cinny v4.12.2: opens the link in a browser, does not pillify it
  • Polycule $current: opens the link in a browser, does not pillify it
  • Tammy 2.0.6: opens the link in a browser, does not pillify it

This would be a good time to deprecate using matrix.to links and forbid this new syntax entirely in user and room mentions

Yup it would be great if clients preferred the more native matrix: or even simply the plain IDs internally. However I think this belongs in a separate MSC: MSC4487.

Signed-off-by: HarHarLinks <2803622+HarHarLinks@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: HarHarLinks <2803622+HarHarLinks@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: HarHarLinks <2803622+HarHarLinks@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

A-Client Server Client-Server API kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec 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. Process state.

Projects

Status: Proposed for FCP readiness

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants