[standards-jig] message formatting (XHTML IM)

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Thu Jun 19 22:03:45 UTC 2003

Hash: SHA1

I'm with Julian, Rachel, PGM, etc on this. Textile is a nice concept 
and there's nothing wrong with clients doing something nice with it, 
but it's not appropriate as the designated transport for encoding.

That said, I think I will have Nitro do formatting w/ Textile, if that 
information is in the message body (and probably make it an option that 
users can disable).


On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 15:08 America/Denver, Julian Missig wrote:

> +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? :)
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)


More information about the Standards mailing list