[standards-jig] message formatting (XHTML IM)

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Thu Jun 19 21:08:43 UTC 2003


+1

If we use Textile, I don't think we can remove the *'s, /'s, and _'s. 
Mozilla Mail sort of implements it like that. I certainly wouldn't have 
a problem with clients making *foo* bold, as long as they don't remove 
the *'s. I still think we should move forward with XHTML IM.

:)

Julian

On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 16:42 US/Eastern, Rachel Blackman wrote:

>> 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? :)




More information about the Standards mailing list