Skip to content

MSC3553: Extensible Events - Videos#3553

Open
turt2live wants to merge 7 commits intomainfrom
travis/msc/extev/video
Open

MSC3553: Extensible Events - Videos#3553
turt2live wants to merge 7 commits intomainfrom
travis/msc/extev/video

Conversation

@turt2live
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@turt2live turt2live commented Dec 7, 2021

@turt2live turt2live changed the title Extensible Events - Videos MSC3553: Extensible Events - Videos Dec 7, 2021
@turt2live turt2live added kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. proposal A matrix spec change proposal proposal-in-review labels Dec 7, 2021
},
"m.thumbnail": [ // optional
{
// A thumbnail is an m.file+m.image, or a small image
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
// A thumbnail is an m.file+m.image, or a small image
// A thumbnail is an m.file+m.image_details, or a small image

The above describes the minimum requirements for sending an `m.video` event. Senders can add additional
blocks, however as per the extensible events system, receivers which understand video events should not
honour them. Such examples might include an `m.audio` block for "audio-only" mode (podcasts, etc) or
an `m.image` to represent the video as a GIF (or similar).
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You say that an m.image content block could be included to represent a GIF here, though m.image isn't a content block. Did you mean m.file? I'm not sure how that would not collide with the m.file for m.video though.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The words:

An image fallback is not necessarily possible, despite all the required blocks being possible.

are below though, which also makes me question this paragraph.

* `m.video_details` - Similar to `m.image_details` from MSC3552, optional information about the video.
`width` and `height` are required, while `duration` (length in seconds of the video) is optional.

Together with content blocks from other proposals, an `m.video` is described as:
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this could also support m.alt_text from MSC3552 as an optional field. while an appropriate caption would be "Bee Movie (2007)", an a11y alt text would for example contain a short description/synopsis, while the file itself would have an accessible audio track and subs for blind and deaf viewers respectively.

The newly introduced blocks are:

* `m.video_details` - Similar to `m.image_details` from MSC3552, optional information about the video.
`width` and `height` are required, while `duration` (length in seconds of the video) is optional.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be more suitable to have the duration in a higher granularity. I think milliseconds would be good.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

see also #3927 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. proposal A matrix spec change proposal

Projects

Status: Tracking for review
Status: Scheduled - v1.10

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants