| > but leaves some important security aspects under-specified Not sure what you mean by underspecified - it is specified to the level of wire encodings. Possibly you looked at the wrong doc? > There is nothing immediately wrong about it, but it's hardly state-of-the-art either: there's no CBOR to reduce overhead, no JSON-LD to improve extensibility, no MIME types to account for different types of attachment. We considered all that, and it seems that they all offer a bad value, compared with lower ubiquity. Also given that messages are padded to fixed 16kb size, there is no value in reducing JSON overhead, and files are sent as binary anyway. Being boring where it doesn't matter is good. > avoid what has happened to Matrix Messaging clients are hard to implement indeed, and forking the UI is usually easier than rebuilding it. We purposefully don't want to encourage the development of alternative clients too early, before the spec stabilised, to avoid the fragmentation that happened both with XMPP and with Matrix. |
what fragmentation are you thinking of with Matrix? to my knowledge, we have zero fragmentation so far. some clients implement more features than others, but we don’t have any classic “my client sends different reactions to yours” or “my client archives messages differently” or “my encryption is incompatible” style problems. otherwise this smells a bit FUDy…