mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
ACTION over NOTICE (aka: /ctcpreply action) #69168 24/01/04 06:00 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,661
Raccoon Offline OP
Hoopy frood
OP Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,661
I would like to see mIRC interpret and display the reception of an ACTION CTCP via NOTICE (aka CTCPREPLY) as if it were a /me sent over /notice.

Presently, you can /describe @ $+ # <action_here> (aka: /ctcp @ $+ # ACTION <action_here>) which sends a channel targeted PRIVMSG including an ACTION CTCP. It is displayed in the channel (to ops) and as Notice-Text color on the receiver's side... but in Action-Text color on the sender's display (rather undesirable behavior).

I think it would be fitting, and perhaps correct, if Op Notice "sub-channel" conversations used NOTICE ACTIONs instead of PRIVMSG ACTIONs. They ought to be displayed in the same Notice-Text color as they are presently displayed.

Furthermore, I think present Op Targeted PRIVMSG ACTION commands should be received in a Query Window, the same as Op Targeted PRIVMSGs are displayed. This will break backward compatibility, but would follow a consistant pattern and will encourage a conformity in scripts and other clients that can't make up their mind.

Add the commands /ndescribe and /ondescribe or perhaps /ome for short.
Display: [00:00] * Nick:@#channel actions here.
And not: [00:00] * @#channel actions here.
On both the sender's and the receiver's display. Presently, the latter is being displayed for sender's odescribes. (a little -> should be displayed on the sender's)

- Raccoon


Well. At least I won lunch.
Good philosophy, see good in bad, I like!
Re: ACTION over NOTICE (aka: /ctcpreply action) #69169 25/01/04 06:23 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 38
O
Olathe Offline
Ameglian cow
Offline
Ameglian cow
O
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 38
You're basically confusing form (how mIRC improperly displays channel operator CTCPs) with function (what CTCP and CTCP replies are properly used for).

If there is a problem with how it looks or where it is displayed on the client, the client should be fixed to properly interpret the standard.

According to the CTCP standard, PRIVMSGs are used for CTCPs and NOTICEs are used for CTCP replies. Actions aren't replies and shouldn't be sent as replies.

Quote:
will encourage a conformity in scripts and other clients that can't make up their mind.


Using CTCP ACTION is a standard to which all clients currently conform. Breaking that standard just because mIRC doesn't properly handle channel operator CTCPs would remove the conformity that's already there for no good reason.

Re: ACTION over NOTICE (aka: /ctcpreply action) #69170 25/01/04 11:02 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,661
Raccoon Offline OP
Hoopy frood
OP Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,661
I would say that Op Notices are a bit off-standard too. The fact that mIRC handles Op Actions (PRIVMSG) like Op Notices (NOTICE), and NOT like Op Message (PRIVMSG) is inconsistant with the RFC. I propose then that there be Action Text for both modes of communication.

You are correct that Notices and CTCP Replies are ment for Replies only, except that people frequently use Notice as a mode of 2 way communication, and as such, they may contain reply-less CTCPs aswell without harm to protocol. (ACTION "Replies" are presently unused and so their use would not interfere)

- Raccoon


Well. At least I won lunch.
Good philosophy, see good in bad, I like!
Re: ACTION over NOTICE (aka: /ctcpreply action) #69171 28/01/04 02:22 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 149
S
Stealth Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
S
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 149
I didn't even know such a thing existed...

* Stealth is amazed at this new knowledge


mIRC 6.21 - Win XP Pro (SP2) - 2.4 Ghz - 1 GB Mem
irc.x-tab.org