gorb/frontend

Fork 0

Implement Mentions #11

New issue

Open

opened 2025-07-03 19:17:27 +00:00 by sauceyred · 7 comments

sauceyred commented

2025-07-03 19:17:27 +00:00

Owner

No description provided.

sauceyred added the

labels 2025-07-03 19:17:38 +00:00

sauceyred added this to the Frontend MVP project 2025-07-03 19:19:49 +00:00

sauceyred self-assigned this 2025-07-03 19:32:48 +00:00

twig commented

2025-07-16 04:49:34 +00:00

Owner

how do we want to do mentions? do we do <@uuid> or do we do <u@uuid>, such that channels could be <c@uuid>, guilds could be <g@uuid>?

how do we want to do mentions? do we do `<@uuid>` or do we do `<u@uuid>`, such that channels could be `<c@uuid>`, guilds could be `<g@uuid>`?

twig commented

2025-07-16 05:35:40 +00:00

Owner

we probably also want pings/references for instances, and maybe even attachments, depending on how those are implemented

sauceyred added the

Reviewed

Confirmed

label 2025-07-16 16:35:31 +00:00

sauceyred commented

2025-07-16 16:36:43 +00:00

Author

Owner

@justtemmie wrote in #11 (comment):

how do we want to do mentions? do we do <@uuid> or do we do <u@uuid>, such that channels could be <c@uuid>, guilds could be <g@uuid>?

The latter seems elegant to me.

@justtemmie wrote in #11 (comment):

we probably also want pings/references for instances, and maybe even attachments, depending on how those are implemented

What do you mean with the attachments part?

@justtemmie wrote in https://git.gorb.app/gorb/frontend/issues/11#issuecomment-638: > how do we want to do mentions? do we do `<@uuid>` or do we do `<u@uuid>`, such that channels could be `<c@uuid>`, guilds could be `<g@uuid>`? The latter seems elegant to me. @justtemmie wrote in https://git.gorb.app/gorb/frontend/issues/11#issuecomment-639: > we probably also want pings/references for instances, and maybe even attachments, depending on how those are implemented What do you mean with the attachments part?

radical commented

2025-07-16 17:00:54 +00:00

Owner

@justtemmie

... or do we do <u@uuid>, such that channels could be <c@uuid>, guilds could be <g@uuid>?

Like this but im not too sure i agree channels should be c@ over #

@justtemmie >... or do we do `<u@uuid>`, such that channels could be `<c@uuid>`, guilds could be `<g@uuid>`? Like this but im not too sure i agree channels should be c@ over #

sauceyred commented

2025-07-16 17:12:22 +00:00

Author

Owner

@radical wrote in #11 (comment):

@justtemmie

... or do we do <u@uuid>, such that channels could be <c@uuid>, guilds could be <g@uuid>?

Like this but im not too sure i agree channels should be c@ over #

I suppose keeping it similar to Discord would be nice for users coming from there, but I think using letters can be more intuitive for everyone. Like if someone learns they can do <c@uuid> to reference a channel, they could easily infer that <g@uuid> (or <s@uuid> if we keep using "server" instead of "guild" on the frontend) is for referencing a guild, <m@uuid> for messages, etc. And it would be easier to remember.

Or we could just support both methods.

@radical wrote in https://git.gorb.app/gorb/frontend/issues/11#issuecomment-710: > @justtemmie > > > ... or do we do `<u@uuid>`, such that channels could be `<c@uuid>`, guilds could be `<g@uuid>`? > > Like this but im not too sure i agree channels should be c@ over # I suppose keeping it similar to Discord would be nice for users coming from there, but I think using letters can be more intuitive for everyone. Like if someone learns they can do `<c@uuid>` to reference a channel, they could easily infer that `<g@uuid>` (or `<s@uuid>` if we keep using "server" instead of "guild" on the frontend) is for referencing a guild, `<m@uuid>` for messages, etc. And it would be easier to remember. Or we could just support both methods.

twig commented

2025-07-17 12:15:20 +00:00

Owner

@sauceyred wrote in #11 (comment):

@radical wrote in #11 (comment):

@justtemmie

... or do we do <u@uuid>, such that channels could be <c@uuid>, guilds could be <g@uuid>?

Like this but im not too sure i agree channels should be c@ over #

I suppose keeping it similar to Discord would be nice for users coming from there, but I think using letters can be more intuitive for everyone. Like if someone learns they can do <c@uuid> to reference a channel, they could easily infer that <g@uuid> (or <s@uuid> if we keep using "server" instead of "guild" on the frontend) is for referencing a guild, <m@uuid> for messages, etc. And it would be easier to remember.

Or we could just support both methods.

i really think the frontend should let you write both c@general and #general

we should probably also assume that @uuid means u@uuid

@sauceyred wrote in https://git.gorb.app/gorb/frontend/issues/11#issuecomment-711: > @radical wrote in #11 (comment): > > > @justtemmie > > > ... or do we do `<u@uuid>`, such that channels could be `<c@uuid>`, guilds could be `<g@uuid>`? > > > > > > Like this but im not too sure i agree channels should be c@ over # > > I suppose keeping it similar to Discord would be nice for users coming from there, but I think using letters can be more intuitive for everyone. Like if someone learns they can do `<c@uuid>` to reference a channel, they could easily infer that `<g@uuid>` (or `<s@uuid>` if we keep using "server" instead of "guild" on the frontend) is for referencing a guild, `<m@uuid>` for messages, etc. And it would be easier to remember. > > Or we could just support both methods. i really think the frontend should let you write both c@general and #general we should probably also assume that @uuid means u@uuid

twig commented

2025-07-17 12:16:45 +00:00

Owner

we probably also want pings/references for instances, and maybe even attachments, depending on how those are implemented

What do you mean with the attachments part?

will vary on how we do attachments, but being able to reference a specific attachment instead of having to reference the message seems awesome if there's a message with 10 attachments.

imagine just clicking on the attachment "link" at it just opens the popup directly

> > we probably also want pings/references for instances, and maybe even attachments, depending on how those are implemented > > What do you mean with the attachments part? will vary on how we do attachments, but being able to reference a specific attachment instead of having to reference the message seems awesome if there's a message with 10 attachments. imagine just clicking on the attachment "link" at it just opens the popup directly