Support Matrix Federation

> > I'm fully against federating with the matrix protocol. It's half baked and missing basic functionality that would hinder fluxer (mixed media messages for example are still not supported) > > Why would this hinder the protocol? Make it a federation limitation not a fluxer limitation Just like iMessage but with good reason (there isn't an RCS for Matrix) Compatibility with matrix would enforce effective feature parity with matrix, all its downfalls included, and at that point you'd basically be making another matrix client with extra steps. You'd be better off using a bridge at that point because trying to make two very different protocols work together is far from ideal

Literally the only difference between bridging and more native federation would be higher availability and the ability to smooth it out a bit at the client level (which isn't even necessary, just nice to have) at the cost of it being a bit more integrated than a seperate bridge and thus needing some more work You do not compromise the protocol for compatibility you compromise the federation You have to be in a community to join a channel? Block joining them without already being in the equivalent space Matrix can't do multi file type messages? Don't federate them Matrix can't have media and messages together? Send 2 Roles and permission level clash? Do a best guess permission level and reject messages that violate the role Don't think a channel can be federated properly without major issues? Don't federate it And for most Fluxer -> interactions they can be mapped pretty cleanly, heck just one way federation to Matrix would be nice I'm struggling to see why the ability to interop would require crippling Fluxer