From b760ec2d747281294634bec051064191d4fd3357 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Werner Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 14:57:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Add comments why alternatives to MSC2422 weren't chosen --- .../2422-allow-color-attribute-on-font-tag.md | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/2422-allow-color-attribute-on-font-tag.md b/proposals/2422-allow-color-attribute-on-font-tag.md index 9e4b1645..3fb03aa5 100644 --- a/proposals/2422-allow-color-attribute-on-font-tag.md +++ b/proposals/2422-allow-color-attribute-on-font-tag.md @@ -29,9 +29,11 @@ Add the `color` attribute to the allowed attributes of `` in section ## Alternatives -- fix the clients -- remove the `data-mx-color` and `data-mx-bg-color` attributes entirely, leaving - us just with `color` for `` -- Add a section to tell the clients to prefer `color` over `mx-data-color` -- Spec an entirely different format for messages (that would probably not make - this proposal obsolete) +- fix the clients + -> This currently seems not feasible. Multiple clients started using color first (i.e. RiotX, Gomuks) and if it isn't spelled out explicitly in the spec, this will probably continue. +- remove the `data-mx-color` and `data-mx-bg-color` attributes entirely, leaving us just with `color` for `` + -> This would break old messages and can be done independently of this proposal at a later date, if it is deemed useful. +- Add a section to tell the clients to prefer `color` over `mx-data-color` + -> I don't really know, why mx-data-* was chosen, but I assume there was a reason, so I don't want to change that. +- Spec an entirely different format for messages (that would probably not make this proposal obsolete) + -> This wouldn't fix the issue, where some client may choose to remove the color tag, since it is dicouraged in the spec. Migration would probably also take a while, so this proposal is a quick solution, that doesn't prevent other solutions at a later date.