[standards-jig] message formatting (XHTML IM)

Rachel Blackman rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Thu Jun 19 20:42:25 UTC 2003


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Yes, such formating is widely and successfully used in Wiki pages, it is
> easy to write for human and to display for client, unlike XHTML.  I have
> only plans to implement XHTML displaying in Tkabber.  Adding of XHTML
> editor is really not very easy task.  So it would be great if someone
> will write JEP about such text formating.

I disagree, and here's the reason.

We've already just had a discussion about making Jabber accessible to
general IM users.  Your average IM user is used to AIM or MSN style
formatting, where you have little Microsoft Word style WYSIWYG editing
buttons.  My dad, for example, understands Control-B, Control-I, Control-U
and the little 'B' 'I' 'U' editor buttons just fine... he's not going to
look at '/foo/' as being italicized, or think about doing things that way.

Now, I think it's fine to use this markup as a client-side input method,
though I don't personally want to support it.  

However, I still think XHTML should be used as the underlying transport
because, honestly, Textile creates issues as transport markup.  If someone
wants to do *.*, is that a literal string, or is a . surrounded by markup?
Sure, you could come up with an escaping scheme, but really, what do you
gain /significantly/ over XHTML in using this as markup?

Or, to put it another way, do we really need two text-formatting methods at
the protocol level? :)

- -- 
Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillian.cc/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQE+8iAyzxcwfH0qMicRAoIFAJ9zfaJziB70g4Av46gdJUEg6NtFrACdHw9y
JTRI0icSBrO7P/+6GvdmpOI=
=MWar
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the Standards mailing list