* Clarify that E0 and E1 are not returned
* Clarify that ASCII art diagram 2 refers to diagram 1
* Correct third ASCII art diagram
To match the spacing in. Borked in the move to new docs format.
55aed1d296/specification/client_server_api.rst (L1610-L1615)
* Make ASCII art 3 follow from ASCII art 2
* Explain how to fill the gap
* Create 3543.clarification
* Update content/client-server-api/_index.md
Co-authored-by: Travis Ralston <travisr@matrix.org>
Split the text about event IDs and event formats into separate sections. This
is largely to make it easier to link to, but I think the resulting text makes
more sense too.
The entries were text-less and not really helping anyone. They are included as pages because we need them for templating, but we don't need people to be able to land on them directly.
This fixes the behaviour to match what synapse implements in practice.
If you use threepidCreds, you will just get an error about a missing
threepid_creds field. Synapse also treats this as an object. All clients
also seem to send threepid_creds, if they work on Synapse. Since
matrix.org requires an email currently for registration, most clients
that implement registration, will hit this issue.
a0f48ee89d/synapse/handlers/ui_auth/checkers.py (L145)fixes#3156fixes#2189
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Werner <nicolas.werner@hotmail.de>
* Fully specify room versions
* Misc typo clarifications
* Try to clarify redactions a bit
* Update content/client-server-api/_index.md
Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
* Update content/rooms/v6.md
Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
* Update content/rooms/v6.md
Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
* Better describe client considerations
* Doc template params
* Move redaction "new stuff" to v3
* Remove unhelpful sentences about "here follows unchanged stuff"
* Simplify event signing text
* Clean up handling redactions sections
* Move v4's event schema to unchanged section
* Update content/rooms/v4.md
Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
* Remove extra pyprojects and update changelog docs
* Add script for rendering the changelog
* Add docs for how to release the spec
* Move legacy changelogs out of the way
* Introduce a new "added-in" template and use it on endpoints
* Use "added-in" on schema properties too
* Annotate sections of the spec with their added versions
* Demo of "added-in" on a room version (to be fleshed out)
* Use clearer versioning semantics
* Update and fix validator for Swagger custom properties
* Fix docs
* Cut/paste room version spec to its own page
* Move grammar to bottom + add feature matrix
The version grammar is not as interesting as the actual room versions, so this moves that whole section to the bottom.
* Fix all links to room versions
* Clarify how redacted_because actually works for events
* changelog
* mention federation
* Fix wording
Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
This tweaks the DAG to be simpler, with two linear event chains E4 -> E3
-> E2 -> E1 and E6 -> E5 -> E2 -> E1. The extremities of the DAG are now
the first and only point in the DAG where multiple event parents occur.
Since the point of the diagram is to demonstrate this very situation,
it's better didactically if there is only one such situation in the
diagram.
The Pagination section in the C-S API was, basically, full of rubbish. I think that anything of any value it contained was repeated either directly on the API definitions or in the text specific to syncing at https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/client-server-api/#syncing.
The conventions I've added to the Appendices are based on the discussions in #1898. They are there because I don't want to have to go through it all again next time we add a paginated API.
Fixes: #1898Fixes: #2268
This change drops the Origin and Accept header names from the
recommended value for the CORS Access-Control-Allow-Headers header. Per
the CORS protocol, it’s not necessary or useful to include them.
Per-spec at https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#forbidden-header-name, Origin
is a “forbidden header name” set by the browser and that frontend
JavaScript code is never allowed to set.
So the value of Access-Control-Allow-Headers isn’t relevant to Origin or
in general to other headers set by the browser itself — the browser
never ever consults the Access-Control-Allow-Headers value to confirm
that it’s OK for the request to include an Origin header.
And per-spec at https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#cors-safelisted-request-header,
Accept is a “CORS-safelisted request-header”, which means that browsers
allow requests to contain the Accept header regardless of whether the
Access-Control-Allow-Headers value contains "Accept".
So it’s unnecessary for the Access-Control-Allow-Headers to explicitly
include Accept. Browsers will not perform a CORS preflight for requests
containing an Accept request header.
Related: Related: https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10114
Signed-off-by: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Fixes#3146.
This PR changes the Matrix Spec Proposals page to clarify that implementations **do not** need to wait until a spec release to use stable prefixes, but that they can do so after the corresponding MSC has been merged. The justification is that once an MSC has been merged, it's fairly guaranteed that it will land in the spec. Yet it will take time for the spec release process to run its course, and we shouldn't make implementations wait for that.
The exception to this is if implementating a feature in a backwards-compatible way requires a new spec version to indicate to clients/servers that a feature has been added/changed. This situation is rare though, and most implementations won't fall into this category.
It wasn't entirely clear what should happen to the FCP timer (and state) when a concern is raised during FCP. After some discussion, we agreed that when a concern is raised:
1. FCP will continue to not conclude until at least 5 days have passed, but once those 5 days are up it *still* won't conclude until all concerns raised during FCP are resolved.
2. If a concern warrants a large enough change in the document, then the Spec Core Team may consider cancelling FCP and restarting the timer in order for people to have some time to think about and review the new changes.
Hubert Chathi