15 Mar
2026
15 Mar
'26
6:51 a.m.
Andrew. Greetnigs.
If so needed, we can improve the specified "fallback" or specify a new
one.
Also, the specification of XHTML-IM has a SELECTION of allowed tags,
not all tags are accepted (e.g. </table> is not defined).
So, we might want to reduce the allowed tags, at the very best.
Regards,
Schimon
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 15:29:24 +0500
Andrew Nenakhov <andrew.nenakhov(a)redsolution.com> wrote:
I was once appalled when this xep was deprecated with
no viable
replacement, but that was a long time ago and its ship has sailed:
Since then we moved to formatting based on references, which also
provides a nice way for a fallback to clients that don't support them.
Fallback for this one, however, requires including a full alternative
message body, which looks very ugly to me, and it gets even more ugly
if we want to save/forward this message. Also, I remember endless
complaints about html tags in messages from users who communicated
with Pidgin, which at the time did put tags right in <body>
So no, I prefer it to stay as it is.
(Message styling as described in XEP-0393 is also not a very good
idea that uses input format as a wire format)
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 at 06:28, Schimon Jehudah via Standards <
standards(a)xmpp.org> wrote:
Greetings.
I am not an XSF member, yet I am interested to reinstate XHTML-IM.
I have useful ideas that would be possible with XHTML-IM.
Nevertheless, even without new ideas, I deem that XEP-0071 should be
reinstated with added security concerns;
Email software also handle (X)HTML, and so many other software,
while implementing security measures; and
Therefore, I deem that, XEP-0071 should be reinstated.
Kind reagrds,
Schimon
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org