[standards-jig] message formatting (XHTML IM)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Jun 19 04:00:01 UTC 2003

On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:52:50PM -0600, Peter Millard wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > On this thread of standardizing on XHTML...
> > 
> > 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".
> > 
> > It's a low barrier to entry for client writers (if you support emoticons,
> > you've already got the infrastructure to support this) and adds a lot of
> > value, imho.
> > 
> > D.
> Part of me really likes this idea, and part of me doesn't :)
> I like that it's soo much simpler than XHTML, but XHTML is more "XML'ish".
> I'd be interested in hearing from others about this.

I'm just a protocol geek who was asked to write a JEP, so I don't dare
speak for client authors. However, it seems to me that a client *could*
translate user-text like _this_ into XHTML for transmission over the
wire, no? I also like the idea of setting an XML-ish precedent, so that 
if people want to exchange other structured information (e.g., MathML), 
they could follow the approach used for XHTML IM.

BTW, I'm also open to further simplifying XHTML IM if folks think that's
valuable (no images, etc.).

The simplicity of Textile is attractive, though. But I'm a structured 
information bigot, so I still tend to prefer something XML-ish.  


More information about the Standards mailing list