[standards-jig] message formatting (XHTML IM)
julian at jabber.org
Thu Jun 19 21:08:43 UTC 2003
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.
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
>> easy to write for human and to display for client, unlike XHTML. I
>> 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,
> and the little 'B' 'I' 'U' editor buttons just fine... he's not going
> look at '/foo/' as being italicized, or think about doing things that
> Now, I think it's fine to use this markup as a client-side input
> 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
> wants to do *.*, is that a literal string, or is a . surrounded by
> Sure, you could come up with an escaping scheme, but really, what do
> 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