[standards-jig] message formatting (XHTML IM)

Matt Jankowski jankowski at bigwhoop.org
Fri Jun 20 01:06:11 UTC 2003


Is the goal here to provide a unified way to format text, or to couple
some meaning w/ the textual data?

For styling/display only, I think everything could be done w/ only the
<span style="...">xxx</span> - clients would only need to understand those
7 CSS properties, and could apply them to whatever text it was wrapping.

If it's to couple semantic meaning to the text being moved, why not allow
all of XHTML?  Perhaps a subset that MUST be supported, but I don't see
why to exlude things that people might find a use for.  Like 'title'
attributes on the 'a' element, for example.

Also, if it's style and NOT meaning, then <b> and <i> would be more
appropriate than <strong> and <em> - vice versa if it's semantic
meaning...

-Matt



On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 06:35:09PM -0400, Nathan Walp wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:05:27PM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > Next question: Are there any changes people would like to see in
> > > JEP-0071? I found a few nits over breakfast the other day, and I know
> > > the schema needs fixing. Do client developers think the range of
> > > element and attribute support is too broad, too narrow, just right?
> > > Do we really need <cite/> and <div/> and <q/>? What about the style
> > > properties? Your friendly neighborhood protocol geek would like to know.
> >
> > I wouldn't mind seeing <hr /> added to the list, but it's not make or
> > break.  I do however, have a problem with this line:
>
> Yeah, I went back and forth on that. No strong feelings here. Personally
> I think <cite/> and <q/> might be unnecessary, and <div/> might open a
> whole can of worms (though the style properties are limited, so it might
> be OK).
>
> > Any other elements and attributes defined in XHTML 1.0 MUST NOT be
> > generated or supported by a compliant implementation of XHTML IM.
> >
> > I think maybe they SHOULD NOT be generated, but what about people who
> > write later JEPs for MathML et all?  Also, are we really going to
> > mandate what they're allowed to support?  I've always liked the "be
> > conservative in what you generate, liberal in what you accept" matra,
> > myself.
>
> I reiterate that if you want to send MathML (never knew it was so
> popular!), write a new JEP for that. It's way out of scope for the
> basics we're defining here.
>
> > Also, can we put up for discussion how XHTML-IM relates to
> > groupchat/MUC?
>
> JEP-0045 saith:
>
>    A compliant service should pass extended information (e.g.,
>    an XHTML version of the message body) through to occupants
>    unchanged.
>
> --stpeter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>



More information about the Standards mailing list