[standards-jig] Re: [formatting-jig] Message Body rendering conformance.

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Sun Jan 20 06:30:31 UTC 2002

Anyway, Jabber does not define how clients render things, that's 
completely up to each client implementation.
Replies within.

Shawn Wilton wrote:
> Hey howdy.  I had an idea and wanted to put it before 
> the big shots.  They told me to send it here.  ;-)
> So the idea is this.  We have a problem right now 
> with how clients handle the rendering/formatting of 
> the message body.  Now I know about the xhtml spec and
> this has *nothing* to do with that.  If you want bold,
> italicism, etc. then you should use the xhtml.  No,
> what I'm talking about are things like the irc tags
> and emoticons.  Now when I go to use the aim or the
> msn system, etc. then I get a consist look and feel
> in the formatting of a message.  I know what the other
> person is going to see when i send them something.
> Unfortunately we do not yet have this sort of 
> congruence in jabber and I think this only hurts us.

What about text clients, SMS clients? We cannot define any standards for 
this stuff, we can only make suggestions. That is a strength because 
people can be new and innovative if they want to.

> Here's what I propose:
> We need a system.  A system that clients can implement
> that gives all of us a similar format to work with.
> 1.  We need emoticons.  These should be smileys, winks,
>     etc. and they need to be free (BSD lisenced icons).
>     For these emoticons we also need standard maps 
>     from text -> graphic that people can use in their 
>     clients.

We could suggest some standard maps from text -> graphic, but that's 
about it. Suggest. We cannot say anyone has to implement anything with 
regards to this.

> 2.  We need a standard list of irc like tags.  As it 
>     stands, almost all clients implement /me for example.
>     I would also propose others for standard convenience.
>     /c for close, /subject for a subject change, and 
>     anything else people can think of.

This is even more client-side than emoticons. I would argue that the 
only ones we should define are ones which actually get sent to other 
clients, such as /me. "/subject" is never actually sent in a message -- 
the client handles it client-side. Same with /c. These are *client* 
commands, not Jabber protocol things.

> Now this would all be optional of course since we can't
> and don't want to force people to use a system they 
> don't care for.  But atleast then we have set of standards
> and free for use icons to work off of.

Right, but like I said the best you could do is suggest. Not 
standardize. Feel free to go forward and make an emoticon suggestion JEP 
and a /command suggestion JEP - but make them separate, since I'm more 
willing to fight the /command stuff :)

email: julian at jabber.org
jabber:julian at jabber.org

More information about the Standards mailing list