[standards-jig] XHTML-IM (JEP-0071) and in-band images

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Fri Jan 9 09:33:07 UTC 2004


> Most of this discussion has been about inserting smileys in messages. Do
> we really want to send smileys again and again as binary filles attached
> to a message? Messages are used a LOT, it's rather useless to send them
> 200 times in one conversation. Another (potential) problem is that they
> get lost after the conversation gets stored in the archive/history of
> the client (depending on the client and the way in which the smileys are
> transferred).

Thats fine I am thinking that it might be best to either remove the inline
attachments and force clients to retrieve them (so they can cache them and
only download them once) or define that it should only be used for likely
non repeating images (such as small thumbnail photos). Also if the
conversation is being saved in a history then common sence dictates that any
cached images and such would be saved too for as long as that conversation
item is, so there is no problem there with things getting lost.

> IMO using inline smileys is not the way to go. We should use smiley
> packs for that purpose.

Smiley packs are fine unless you want to send a custom non standard emoticon
to someone, MSN allows this and its somewhat useful, why cant we too? Also I
think there is a fundamental problem with emoticon packs that if each person
is not using the same pack someones feeling or emotion trying to be conveyed
by a particular emoticon might be lost or misunderstood because people wont
necessaryly be seeing the same representation of that.

> BTW maybe it's nice to first define some scenarios here? Normally when
> you design something technical you create some scenarios and then you
> create a list of requirements based on those scenarios. Then you start
> thinking about the technical part of the solution :D In 99% of the
> discussion on this list people jump right into the technical part
> without having a good understanding of the goals of the idea that they
> are proposing.

Thats fine but we have already defined this as a solution to a very real
problem in the real world of people having to upload their images to HTTP
servers at the moment before they can include them in jabber messages, where
normal users will most likely not have the knowledge or skills to set one up
themselves and NAT's and firewalls will stop people's clients from being
able to host that automatically for them.

Richard




More information about the Standards mailing list