Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
XIP-14: Conversation context metadata schema #14
XIP-14: Conversation context metadata schema #14
Changes from 1 commit
98c6081
750ddd8
74f4431
12307de
20a02b2
0b260f2
aae4a75
9d2c11f
c53a643
fa7ca44
1490b07
cf960f6
c257849
d862824
45afcfa
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If these are externally hosted, why such a low maximum?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Based on Darick's suggestions. Thoughts on increasing min resolution @darickdang?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@neekolas Since the image would be used in avatar-like settings (or to complement an avatar), I looked at popular services/libraries such as Gravatar (minimum size 1px) and Libravatar (minimum size is 80x80) standards in addition to Apple's Human Interface Guidelines of having a minimum toucharea of 44x44 (and then I doubled that to add @2x support as the minimum) to create the number you see here.
Open to making it bigger though. Not that strong of an opinion from my end here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just wonder if some apps are going to want a clickable/zoomed view of app icons. Or an extra large icon. Maybe that's not a real concern here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if it might help to include a mockup of a UI showing how the
displayName
,profileImage
, andprimaryColor
might be used? While theprofileImage
might be more obvious, people might be curious about where thedisplayName
andprimaryColor
might be used? An image might also really drive home the value!And is the idea now that we don't need to use only the
conversationId
as conversation label text?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Adding a sample UI is such a good idea @jhaaaa!
Yes, with a conversationId like 'lens.dev/dm/...' there isn't a shared understanding of how to render it? Should the UI display 'Lens', 'lens.dev', or the complete conversationId? The displayName makes it explicit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great call @jhaaaa. Will look at making an example.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The invitation is encrypted and authenticated using the sender & recipient keys. So the metadata must have been created by one of the parties if the invitation is successfully unsealed (https://github.com/xmtp/proto/blob/main/proto/message_contents/invitation.proto).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While invitations are authenticated by sender & recipient, setting metadata and conversationId is usually abstracted away from users so front-end clients end up making the decision for what these fields carry.
Spoofing example: A (malicious) client Yash uses to message Martin could set conversationId to a 'lens.dev/...' and set brandInfo that doesn't represent Lens.
Today convoID/metadata<>app/protocol/brand mapping is not verifiable, and therefore relies on good behavior.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see, I misread this section. This is however a more general concern that currently apps have complete access to a user's XMTP identity/keys, so a users must necessarily trust the app they are using in all regards not just this particular aspect. It may still be worth mentioning here, but I'm less sure about what the solution should be. Some amount of trust between the user and the app may always be necessary.