[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-0071 XHTML-IM lack of scope
jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Thu Sep 2 09:45:38 UTC 2004
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:21:22AM +0200, Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 16:53:50 -0700, Rachel Blackman
> <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com> wrote:
> >As a result, at some point, <strong/> and <em/> got co-opted as the new
> ><b/> and <i/>, because they're standard elements.
I think this dicussion is totally beside the actual intention. The difference
between the use of XHTML in Jabber and on the web is that on the web the total
misuse of the elements is due to the fact that people edit XHTML themselves or
have it generated by brain-dead software.
I argue that the XHTML that is to be generated (and consumed) by Jabber
applications (as XHTML-IM, that is) should only originate from the client
itself for the use of rich text/formatting. The user will most likely not be
inclined to craft the XHTML directly to send off an IM.
So I imagine a button Bold that generates <b></b> or the CSS equivalent. And
so on. Maybe we shouldn't even use <em/>, but that depends on the user
interface. It could have a button that says 'Emphasize' instead. But then
I wouldn't also show 'Bold' and 'Italics'.
For cut/paste actions, just convert the input to what you allow to send out.
Isn't this JEP for /lightweigth/ formatting, as stated in the Introduction?
For the rest, you can always send full-fledged XHTML by using the appropriate
(W3C) namespace. Security issues are the same as for sending someone an XHTML
file by e-mail. If the software is written stupid enough it will allow the
execution of arbitrary scripts, etc, but I think those issues are basically the
More information about the Standards