Hope everyone's having a wonderful Mothers' Day weekend.

Here is a first pass at a specification for "invisible" twig extension. I omitted a reference to an example implementation since I expect we'll factor it into its own function.
Currently it is hard-coded into the twig extensions that use it.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Cheers,

Andrew Thorp

---
 specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/index.md  | 9 +++++++++
 specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/spec.toml | 5 +++++
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/index.md
 create mode 100644 specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/spec.toml

diff --git a/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/index.md b/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/index.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1557a4a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Active Status
+Twig metadata which indicates whether or not a message is intended to be rendered.
+Field specification in [spec.toml](spec.toml).
+
+## Usage
+If a message is intended to be strictly metadata or is otherwise not supposed to
+be rendered as a chat message, add the invisibility twig metadata to mark a
+message as invisible. It is up to the client to implement how it handles an
+"invisible" message, or if it even enforces it.
diff --git a/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/spec.toml b/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/spec.toml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9e6ab3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/spec.toml
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+key-name = "invisible"
+
+[version.1.data]
+type = "Byte Array"
+description = "No additional metadata is provided, so these bytes are unused and usually empty."
-- 
2.17.1

Hey Andrew!

Thanks for putting this together. It's looking solid, see below for a
couple of thoughts.

Cheers,
Chris

On Sat May 8, 2021 at 8:58 AM EDT, Andrew Thorp wrote:
> Hope everyone's having a wonderful Mothers' Day weekend.
>
> Here is a first pass at a specification for "invisible" twig extension.
> I omitted a reference to an example implementation since I expect we'll
> factor it into its own function.
> Currently it is hard-coded into the twig extensions that use it.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrew Thorp
>
> ---
> specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/index.md | 9 +++++++++
> specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/spec.toml | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/index.md
> create mode 100644 specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/spec.toml
>
> diff --git a/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/index.md
> b/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/index.md
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..1557a4a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/index.md
> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> +# Active Status
> +Twig metadata which indicates whether or not a message is intended to
> be rendered.
> +Field specification in [spec.toml](spec.toml).

I've been having a devil of a time making these relative links work.
Not sure what to do about them. This is more of an observation than
a request. I used this syntax in the other files. It's broken on the
man.sr.ht UI, but I don't know what else to do.

> +## Usage
> +If a message is intended to be strictly metadata or is otherwise not
> supposed to
> +be rendered as a chat message, add the invisibility twig metadata to
> mark a
> +message as invisible. It is up to the client to implement how it
> handles an
> +"invisible" message, or if it even enforces it.
> diff --git a/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/spec.toml
> b/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/spec.toml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..9e6ab3a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/specifications/twig-extensions/invisible/spec.toml
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +key-name = "invisible"
> +
> +[version.1.data]
> +type = "Byte Array"
> +description = "No additional metadata is provided, so these bytes are
> unused and usually empty."

I would prefer to require that the array contain no data. I can't think of
a use-case for putting data in there that isn't better addressed by a
separate twig extension or a new version of this one.

> --
> 2.17.1