Skip to content

MSC4175: Profile field for user time zone #4175

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Sep 8, 2025
Merged

MSC4175: Profile field for user time zone #4175

merged 10 commits into from
Sep 8, 2025

Conversation

@clokep
Copy link
Member

@clokep clokep commented Aug 5, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@clokep clokep mentioned this pull request Aug 5, 2024
Merged
@clokep clokep added proposal A matrix spec change proposal needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. feature Suggestion for a significant extension which needs considerable consideration client-server Client-Server API kind:feature MSC for not-core and not-maintenance stuff and removed feature Suggestion for a significant extension which needs considerable consideration labels Aug 5, 2024
sumnerevans
sumnerevans reviewed Aug 9, 2024
View reviewed changes
Half-Shot
Half-Shot reviewed Aug 28, 2024
View reviewed changes
@clokep @Half-Shot
Fix typos.
416bb7e 
Co-authored-by: Will Hunt <[email protected]>
Half-Shot
Half-Shot reviewed Aug 28, 2024
View reviewed changes
@Half-Shot Half-Shot mentioned this pull request Sep 6, 2024
Closed
4 tasks
@Half-Shot
Copy link
Contributor

Half-Shot commented Sep 6, 2024 •
edited
Loading

matrix-org/matrix-react-sdk#12967 is an implementation of this.

@x86pup
Copy link

x86pup commented Sep 8, 2024

conduwuit server-side partial implementation: https://github.com/girlbossceo/conduwuit/commit/f163ebf3bbaa9656bbf1d78355220e1d859b17c7#diff-6f6ce4833edde4b67f9f5c950adce5338f3e3a19b6d287c33ff4e9d290b94fa1

ruwuma (our ruma fork) partial implementation for conduwuit:

The partial implementation only supports GET/PUT/DELETE for just the us.cloke.msc4175.tz field. More thought into supporting "generic" K-V fields is being done, but at least gets a basic implementation through the door that can be usable in any future clients that implement the timezone field (which seems likely soon 😇).

@Half-Shot Half-Shot mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2024
Merged
4 tasks
@clokep
Copy link
Member Author

clokep commented Sep 10, 2024

Judging by this having an implementation I think this isn't really a draft anymore.

@clokep clokep marked this pull request as ready for review September 10, 2024 21:19
@clokep clokep removed the needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. label Sep 10, 2024
@tcpipuk tcpipuk mentioned this pull request Sep 14, 2024
Open
@tcpipuk
Copy link
Contributor

tcpipuk commented Jan 22, 2025

This is also implemented in gomuks: gomuks/gomuks#574

@tcpipuk tcpipuk mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2025
Open
@tcpipuk tcpipuk mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2025
Merged
3 tasks
@clokep
Copy link
Member Author

clokep commented May 14, 2025

This has a couple of implementations and has proven useful already.

I think it is reasonable and doesn't have too much room for abuse.

@mscbot fcp merge

@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented May 14, 2025 •
edited by erikjohnston
Loading

Team member @mscbot has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged people:

Concerns:

  • checklist incomplete

Once at least 75% of reviewers approve (and there are no outstanding concerns), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for information about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@mscbot mscbot added proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of a majority of team members in order to enter the final comment period. disposition-merge labels May 14, 2025
@clokep @turt2live
Review comments.
0bcd686 
Co-authored-by: Travis Ralston <[email protected]>
dbkr
dbkr reviewed Aug 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
ara4n
ara4n reviewed Aug 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
proposals/4175-profile-field-time-zone.md
savings. Using the IANA time zone name is robust against this.


### Delegate profile fields
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have to say i am quite uneasy about this MSC - it feels like a slippery slope towards bloating out the Matrix spec with an overlapping and incomplete implementation of JSContact (RFC9553).

But on the other hand, RFC9553 simply doesn't contain a "current timezone for user" attribute - it's only available as an attribute on physical addresses. And RFC9553 is for describing addressbook entries... not profile information (which is subtly semantically different: the data you expect to see in your Contacts app in your phone is definitely different shape to the data you expect to see on someone's LinkedIin profile for instance).

So perhaps the best bet here is to just bite the bullet and spec our own field types like this. But I really hope we end up finding a way to put them in their own registry rather than bulk out the rest of the spec - and to indirect to the likes of RFC9553 where we conceivably can.

Copy link
Member Author

@clokep clokep Aug 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have to say i am quite uneasy about this MSC - it feels like a slippery slope towards bloating out the Matrix spec with an overlapping and incomplete implementation of JSContact (RFC9553).

This is the reason I let this sit for so long without pushing this harder after MSC4133 was merged. I'm not really sure how I feel about it but didn't see a better option, especially given there is no explicit time zone field in RFC9553 as you mention below.

I was hoping other SCT members would shout if this seemed to go in the direction of NIH.

which is subtly semantically different: the data you expect to see in your Contacts app in your phone is definitely different shape to the data you expect to see on someone's LinkedIin profile for instance

Agreed that it is different, much of the info overlaps as it is describing a person, but the context is different.

So perhaps the best bet here is to just bite the bullet and spec our own field types like this. But I really hope we end up finding a way to put them in their own registry rather than bulk out the rest of the spec - and to indirect to the likes of RFC9553 where we conceivably can.

We could have a field contains a JScontact (or a link to one), but that's a bit beyond this MSC. I agree though that we should not redefine solved things.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ara4n Let me know if you want any updates for this or not, I'm unsure if the alternatives section should be fleshed out more?

@tulir tulir mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2025
Open
uhoreg
uhoreg reviewed Aug 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
@clokep @uhoreg
Typo fix
401cfc8 
Co-authored-by: Hubert Chathi <[email protected]>
@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Sep 2, 2025

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

@mscbot mscbot added final-comment-period This MSC has entered a final comment period in interest to approval, postpone, or delete in 5 days. and removed proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of a majority of team members in order to enter the final comment period. labels Sep 2, 2025
@turt2live turt2live moved this from Ready for FCP ticks to In FCP in Spec Core Team Workflow Sep 2, 2025
@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Sep 7, 2025

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

@mscbot mscbot added finished-final-comment-period and removed disposition-merge final-comment-period This MSC has entered a final comment period in interest to approval, postpone, or delete in 5 days. labels Sep 7, 2025
@turt2live turt2live merged commit 05bc4b4 into main Sep 8, 2025
1 check passed
@turt2live turt2live added spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec and removed finished-final-comment-period labels Sep 8, 2025
@turt2live turt2live moved this from In FCP to Requires spec writing in Spec Core Team Workflow Sep 8, 2025
@turt2live
Copy link
Member

Spec PR: matrix-org/matrix-spec#2206

@turt2live turt2live added spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review and removed spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec labels Sep 8, 2025
@turt2live turt2live moved this from Requires spec writing to Requires spec PR review in Spec Core Team Workflow Sep 8, 2025
@clokep clokep deleted the clokep/profile-tz branch September 8, 2025 15:03
@clokep clokep added merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! and removed spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review labels Sep 9, 2025
@turt2live
Copy link
Member

Merged 🎉

@turt2live turt2live moved this from Requires spec PR review to Merged in Spec Core Team Workflow Sep 9, 2025
@zecakeh zecakeh mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2025
Closed
31 tasks
@zecakeh zecakeh mentioned this pull request Oct 7, 2025
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@dbkr dbkr dbkr left review comments

@uhoreg uhoreg uhoreg left review comments

@ara4n ara4n ara4n left review comments

@Half-Shot Half-Shot Half-Shot left review comments

@turt2live turt2live turt2live approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@sumnerevans sumnerevans sumnerevans left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

client-server Client-Server API kind:feature MSC for not-core and not-maintenance stuff merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! proposal A matrix spec change proposal

Projects

Spec Core Team Workflow
Status: Merged

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants

@clokep @Half-Shot @x86pup @tcpipuk @mscbot @turt2live @dbkr @uhoreg @ara4n @sumnerevans