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

Consider allowing the HTML <details> tag in messages #2182

Closed
ananace opened this issue Jul 16, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #2184
Closed

Consider allowing the HTML <details> tag in messages #2182

ananace opened this issue Jul 16, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #2184
Labels
client-server Client-Server API improvement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol

Comments

@ananace
Copy link
Contributor

ananace commented Jul 16, 2019

As noted in #twim:matrix.org, bot output can easily become quite large, to the point where a simple user response fills an entire screen and breaks conversation.

To offer a way to avoid this, without losing legibility or having to remove important information from bot responses, perhaps supporting the HTML <details> tag could be a solution. Tag references; <details>, and <summary>.
The contents of the details - and the associated summary - block would of course be subject to the normal Matrix tag rules.

I can see many places where the ability to offer both a summary and a detail view in the same message could be of huge help to bots. From RSS feed or commit updates - where a message could contain the title and link as a summary, with an excerpt as the details - to monitoring alerts where the summary could be the alert itself, and the details would contain relevant graphs or full check outputs.

@turt2live turt2live added client-server Client-Server API improvement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol labels Jul 16, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
client-server Client-Server API improvement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants