[standards-jig] UPDATED: XHTML IM (JEP-0071)
jankowski at bigwhoop.org
Wed Feb 19 22:38:31 UTC 2003
If the goal of the xhtml-im subset is to allow for arbitrary,
sender-controlled formatting of the <message /> elements within the
stream, then it seems like defining CSS rules at some point during the
connection (this probably would wreak havoc in a chatroom, but be fine for
chat) which would be applied from then on could suffice. That would allow
for whatever bizzaro namespaces people might want to wrap in <message />'s
as well. MathML, or some other namespace, for example.
If the goal is to gain some of the semantic meaning behind (x)html
elements and use them within the scope of a <body /> in a <message />,
then I'd say leave in as many as possibly make sense (or all of -basic).
I can't really imagine a fun-to-use client interface that intelligently
built definition lists without specific advice from the user, but
semantically, dl's are something that are often communicated, so they
should be at least allowed, I would think.
So is this two issues?
* Define a generic styling control mechanism?
* Define a subset of semantically meaningful (in IM) xhtml elements?
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Matt Jankowski wrote:
> > It might be useful to allow clients to send a <style> section within a
> > <head>, and have these styles apply to all future messages within that
> > stream, until another one is received. That way, if I DO have a .css file
> > that I'd like to apply to all of my messages, I can just send it once
> > instead of with every message.
> Well, in IM there is no <head>. Basically the "document" in Jabber is the
> entire stream. Now, maybe it would be nice to negotiate a stylesheet for a
> conversation or associate a stylesheet with a certain user (hmm, that's
> got possibilities). But I think that would happen outside the context of
> XHTML IM. However, you'd need to reference those styles via classes and
> make sure that the other person generates the right class attributes.
> > Why specifically eliminate <strong> and <em>? I would think that it will
> > be just as easy to allow someone to select 'strong' from a menu as
> > it would for them to select 'bold'...
> Just 'cause I'm anal about the physical vs. logical distinction.
> > Would a compliant client be REQUIRED to apply the styles it received to an
> > incoming message, or could it allow it's user to define their own styles
> > to apply to messages?
> I have to think those would be user preferences, as is done in browsers
> (my local styles can override those provided in the document).
> > Just a few thoughts. I'm having trouble seperating a 'document' from a
> > 'message', and trying to bring too much of a webpage into an IM message,
> > perhaps.
> Yeah, it's a bit mind-bending at times. As with streaming XML, here too
> Jabber is using things in quite a different way with XHTML IM.
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards