[standards-jig] message formatting (XHTML IM)

David Waite mass at akuma.org
Thu Jun 19 01:25:49 UTC 2003


We really have two ends of the spectrum; one one end has /me and 
text-parsed emoticons; the other has something like xhtml or even 
something closer to docbook - with the base element annotated to 
indicate the voice of the message either as a normal message (spoken) or 
a /me-style action, and extended with xml emoticon  markup.

While I would prefer the xml markup route - I really would be content as 
long as we don't require both xml and custom text parsing to figure out 
how a message should be displayed. My only technical requirement for a 
text-based markup is that I can indicate pre-formatted content so that I 
can cut-and-paste code without various bits being highlighted, 
italicized, or turned into frownies.

-David Waite

Robert Norris wrote:

>>If we're only interested in the most basic of markup (bold, italics, etc.)
>>perhaps we should simply consider standardizing on a convention such as
>>Textile (http://www.textism.com/tools/textile/index.html). Similar in
>>scope to the widely used "/me" convention, we could just embed the markup
>>directly in the message body, since it's still "human-friendly".
>>    
>>
>
>Its very Wiki-like. TikiText is another example of this:
>
>  http://mt-plugins.org/local/tikitext.php
>
>I agree with pgm though, that XHTML is more XML-friendly. That said, it
>is heavier and isn't easily human-readable. Also, I would guess that in
>order to implement XHTML properly, they have to present a simplified
>HTML-editor-style interface to the user? Wouldn't this just make things
>more complex, since client authors have to write more code, and users
>have to take their hands off the keyboard to do more interesting things?
>
>(I don't know - I'm not a client dev, nor a power IM user - maybe its
>easier than I think).
>
>Perhaps it could be possible to intersperse XHTML markup with this
>simplified markup? (although that would make the parsing harder).
>
>Maybe XHTML could just be reserved for richer content (eg embedded
>images and such - not that I want to encourage it).
>
>Just thoughts ..
>
>Rob.
>
>  
>





More information about the Standards mailing list