|
|
@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ retrospectively to describe the de-facto redaction algorithm.
|
|
|
|
## Potential issues
|
|
|
|
## Potential issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is theoretically possible that a closed federation could exist whose servers
|
|
|
|
It is theoretically possible that a closed federation could exist whose servers
|
|
|
|
do follow the spec as is. This MSC would render those servers uncompliant with
|
|
|
|
do follow the spec as is. This MSC would render those servers non-compliant with
|
|
|
|
the spec. On balance this seems unlikely and in the worst case those
|
|
|
|
the spec. On balance this seems unlikely and in the worst case those
|
|
|
|
implementors could add the change to a subsequent room version, eventually
|
|
|
|
implementors could add the change to a subsequent room version, eventually
|
|
|
|
reaching spec consistency as older room versions are deprecated.
|
|
|
|
reaching spec consistency as older room versions are deprecated.
|
|
|
@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ Another scenario is that a client may redact events according to the spec as is
|
|
|
|
and persist prev_content through the redaction, thereby diverting from that on
|
|
|
|
and persist prev_content through the redaction, thereby diverting from that on
|
|
|
|
the server(s). Client authors will have to update their code to drop
|
|
|
|
the server(s). Client authors will have to update their code to drop
|
|
|
|
```prev_content``` - however, given that prev_content should not be used in
|
|
|
|
```prev_content``` - however, given that prev_content should not be used in
|
|
|
|
important calculations and/or visualisations, this ought to be relatively
|
|
|
|
important calculations and/or visualisations, this ought to be a relatively
|
|
|
|
uninvaisive change.
|
|
|
|
non-invasive change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Security considerations
|
|
|
|
## Security considerations
|
|
|
|